Talk:Terrorism/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 NPOV Dispute 1.1 NPOV solutions 2 Another proposal 2.1 NPOV Arguments 2.2 Specific NPOV Disputes 3 Jayjg Revert Dispute 4 Introduction Dispute 4.1 Solving the definition problem 4.2 I've seen a lot of high-handed edits in the last year ... 4.3 Somebody ban this guy 4.4 Leave off the box 5 Discussion about new intro and original research 6 Examples of Admins who think they are above the Rules of Engagement 7 Examples of problematic edits 8 Copy edit 9 Please stop the crap 10 on to a real issue 11 Protected 12 Off-topic 13 Towards a new introduction 14 Considerations when Creating a Definitive Introduction to Terrorism 14.1 Arguments for use (taken from Wikipedia Words to Avoid) 14.2 Matching an Introduction to the Above Criteria

NPOV Dispute

An NPOV Dispute exists for the introductory section of the article on terrorism. The arguments of this dispute are discussed in the subsection NPOV Arguments. The NPOV dispute centers around introductory claims that terrorism has become a broad, vague, subjective term, since the beginning of the War on Terrorism, that cannot be defined to everyone's satisfaction. Those of us who disagree, contend that this POV helps the enemy by confusing what we are fighting for. Terrorism is precisely and objectively defined for the War on Terrorism by the USA Act. Outside of the parameters of war, we have been using the same definition of terrorism for over two hundred years, since the French Reign of Terror as precisely defined by Webster. An objective definition of terrorism exists which can be used to convey meaningful information. In order to defeat terrorism, every soldier and citizen needs the ability to convey information accurately and efficiently. We need to know what we are fighting. Introducing the term as so vague and controversial that we can't objectively define it is a POV that fundamentally disagrees with every other encyclopedia and dictionary, and it does nothing except diffuse our focus, thereby aiding the enemy. --Zephram Stark 17:33, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

• To read or contribute to specific arguments about the NPOV dispute, please use the NPOV Arguments subsection.
• To help us bring the definition of terrorism up to the NPOV standards of Wikipedia, please use the NPOV Solutions subsection.

"we"? Who are "we"? That's biased in itself... -- 82.38.96.87

Excuse me, "we" are not fighting a war, we're trying to make a good encyclopedia. Don't assume that there is some common enemy that everybody writing this article wants to combat, because there isn't. – Smyth\^talk 17:52, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

That's my point exactly, and the reason why terrorism needs to be defined objectively. Writing the definition from a pejorative POV is a conflict of interest because it precludes the possibility that the author might be implicated in the definition. --Zephram Stark 17:33, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

NPOV solutions

This section is for suggestions and proposals to create an objective introduction to terrorism. If you think the introduction is already objective, or you think that the introduction doesn't need to be objective, please voice your to opinion in the NPOV Arguments section.

---

Looking through the archives, it appears that suggested definitions fall into two categories that seem to have no implementable overlap:

• The time-honored definition written in Webster dictionaries and used for over two hundred years since the Reign of Terror: basically intimidation for political purposes; and
• The definition written in the USA Act and adopted as the description of terrorism for the USA PATRIOT Act and the War on Terrorism:

1. It intimidates or coerces the government or civil population
2. It breaks criminal laws
3. It endangers human life

Does everyone agree so far? --Zephram Stark 13:53, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, no. The only consensus I can see is that people are weary of your ongoing attempts to rewrite the introduction of this article. What if you gave this a rest for a couple of days and worked on another article for a little bit? Or made constructive criticism about something in this article that left the introduction intact?BrandonYusufToropov 15:14, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Even if you disagree with the idea, everything in the above recitation is factually correct. We can use facts as a basis to form an objective description. Since there are two views of the facts, I propose that we look for an intersect—-a common area in which both sides agree—-to start our introduction.

• The Webster meaning of the word, by definition, precludes any overlap with the purpose of conventional warfare, but does not limit the term to illegal activity.
• The War on Terrorism definition also precludes any overlap with the purpose of conventional warfare, but limits its definition to non-governmental perpetrators.

Therefore, we have some common ground on which to build. Everyone who understands that the purpose of conventional warfare is to destroy the opponent's military force can agree that terrorism is not conventional warfare.

What can we add to that?

As editors of Wikipedia, we have a duty to write articles that are not open to our personal bias. The term terrorism is one filled with emotion. Both sides of the current war want to use it to vilify the other. Yet the term has a definite meaning outside of Arab or US/UK propaganda. That meaning is not inherently pejorative, nor does necessarily imply immorality. Our job is to create a resource of objective definitions, not to start definitions with idiotic subjectivity like it's "controversial and has many definitions." A good article creates a tertiary source, referencing widely accepted primary and secondary sources first, and then moving to propaganda and POV disputes. It never takes sides in a war or allows a political redefinition to become the introduction to a term. I propose that we scrap the horribly misleading POV introduction to terrorism in favor of what we can prove by references to primary and secondary sources.

We should start with the definition that is most widely used. Since Smyth likes OED, I have no problem starting with that definition: Terrorism is "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" (OED). Almost every other dictionary and encyclopedia starts with a similar definition. We should then mention the different types of terrorism, with links to the objective Wikipedia definitions of each. Finally, we should mention that the word is also used as propaganda, and list all the ways that the term is used to vilify one's enemy.

Does anyone have a problem with proceeding this way instead of throwing our hands up and basically saying that it can't be objectively defined? --Zephram Stark 04:22, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. This is not "terrorism" as in terrorizing the the 12-year old who sits next to you in class. A dictionary definition is both out-of-date and less relevant for this usage. I believe that the U.N. version, noting the disputed areas, is the appropriate version. It takes into account all parties' concerns, especially those who have long been in opposition to this. --Noitall 19:50, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Then write a draft introduction that does the things you say, and post it on this talk page for comments. Your last attempt at doing that got a lot of opposition, so read that opposition before you try again. And if you again receive no support whatsoever, then you should drop this issue – it has been going on for a month now, and not one single editor has spoken on your side. If your case was really as strong as you say it is, I think someone would have agreed with you by now. – Smyth\^talk 19:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

In the letter I sent to the foundation, I gave you the benefit of the doubt by assuming that you didn't have any ulterior motives. Here is a copy of part relevant to you and this article. --Zephram Stark 03:31, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is beautiful—it is widely accepted as the best tool in the world for determining the most friendly definition of a term—the description of a word that is common to the most people or to those who have the strongest feelings about the word. Yet, beauty is only one aspect of our reality.

Goodness is another necessary construct in fashioning our reality. How good is Wikipedia for our society? How can an encyclopedia best promote the welfare of our species? Language is the enabler of group intelligence. To the extent that our definitions convey information, our society can collectively process its thoughts and create social implementations. For the good of society, definitions must have unique and objective meanings—each word must convey concise information. Wikipedia definitions favor social acceptance over the efficient conveyance of information, and are therefore, not good for society.

Plato said that our reality is based on the constructs of beauty and goodness, tempered by discoveries of truth. The descriptions of words in the encyclopedia are unquestionably constructs—they have no existence outside of the definitions we create for them. For that reason, it seems logical that Wikipedia fact-checks itself only against popular opinion. Yet, while languages are constructs, the definitions of words often refer to items of fact. The scientific community has strict procedures for determining the truthfulness of purported facts, especially when claims are in dispute, but Wikipedia does not. As a result, Wikipedia definitions favor social acceptance over the scientific method when determining the truthfulness of purported or omitted facts, and could therefore, not be considered truthful.

Civilization does not exist without language. Language does not exist without common definitions. Wikipedia has shown that it can create common definitions for our language better than any other resource, but the resulting definitions convey neither the truth, nor concise and unique information, by necessity. The task ahead, in making Wikipedia a viable central clearinghouse for the definitive foundation of our reality, is to infuse truth and goodness into Wikipedia without reducing the system’s beauty.

TRUTH:

The constructs of our reality can only agree with truth when such proofs are evident. Wikipedia currently enables the evidence of truth as buried versions in each definition’s history, or through objections on the discussion page. Never does truth remain on the definition page when it is in conflict with social acceptance. A Factual or NPOV tag is placed on the top of the page when a conflict exists, but this tag is considered to be a failure state of that definition, and thus, in need of removal as soon as possible. As a result, social acceptance always trumps the truth of a definition in a relatively short period of time.

Throughout history, we have seen that truth (as independently proven through the scientific method) rarely becomes socially accepted overnight, yet it eventually gains social favor in every case that its evidence can avoid subversion. The key to making Wikipedia a viable resource of definitions that are factually correct, not just socially acceptable, becomes a function of the persistence and availability of alternate definitions that dispute specific phrases or omissions in the main article. For instance, if a disputed phrase were colored and underlined in red, and hyperlinked to a claim of more factual information about that area of the article, it could remain readily available indefinitely without detracting from the main definition of the term. In this way, social acceptance of an article could remain without subversion of the truth. Over time, if enough people found the dispute to be valid, the alternate definition would gain enough social favor to be incorporated into the main article.

GOODNESS:

The good that it does for society is the most important factor in the creation of a dictionary or encyclopedia, and an aspect that is largely lost in Wikipedia. Individually, we all have the drive to do good, but that drive is lost or perverted when consumed by the fear and egotistical demands of mob mentality. The result of enabling mob rule in Wikipedia is that definitions fail to convey information. If we want Wikipedia definitions to benefit society, they must be more than reflections of usage. The definitions must be definitive.

When Noah Webster created the first American dictionary, he sought to codify the language—to create a system of words to enable efficient communication. In doing so, he sought not to capture ambiguous usage, but to make language as potent as possible by looking to the roots of each word for the definition. He knew that new words or phrases were created where the need existed—where there wasn’t previously a term to describe a common element of society. Only by going to the root of each word for the definition, could Webster create a system of terms that covered every major aspect of speech with minimal ambiguity.

I believe that Noah Webster would turn over in his grave if he saw some of the definitions on Wikipedia. ‘Terrorism’, for example, does not convey any information. The Wikipedia definition of ‘terrorism’ starts, “The term ‘terrorism’ is controversial and has many definitions, none of which are universally accepted. Especially since the United States declared its ‘war on terror’ in response to the September 11, 2001 attacks, applications of the term have ranged widely. The same is true of the word ‘terror’.” The Wikipedia article then goes on to list all the vague and contradictory ways that terrorism is used for propaganda, but refers to the propaganda as definitive. As a final insult to anyone trying to objectify the definition, the author states that the term is pejorative, thereby relegating its usage to a synonym of ‘evil’.

Using the Webster definition of ‘terrorism’ conveys concise information. Using the Wikipedia definition of ‘terrorism’ conveys nothing. Why? Is it because Smyth, the author who jealously guards his article from change, is opposed to creating a definition that conveys information? I doubt it. I think Smyth doesn’t know how to create a definition. He doesn’t seem to know the purpose of an encyclopedia. From what he says in the discussion page, it appears that he believes a primary definition should be as ambiguous as required to capture every usage of the term, even those that are self-contradictory and used for the blatant promotion of propaganda.

No dictionary or encyclopedia in the history of the world, before Wikipedia, has attempted to capture every usage in the introductory description of each term. Why? Because the result would not be good: definitions would be muddled to the point that they would stop being useful and our language would be reduced to a cesspit of redundant ambiguity.

Optimistically, all that may be needed is a friendly reminder from the foundation to all contributors that we are creating an encyclopedia here, not trying to capture every confused usage of each term. In order to do some good, our definitions need to convey information.

In the fundraising section of Wikipedia it says, “Imagine a world in which every person has free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing.” This statement isn’t entirely correct. Large segments of human knowledge are subverted here in Wikipedia in favor of popularity. Truth is easily subverted when it conflicts with popular belief. Good definitions are also subverted in favor of ambiguous popular usage. While popularity is a necessary component of a definitive reality, goodness and truth must also be present. With minimal changes to our format, all three can co-exist here in Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is not a vehicle for manipulating the English language. We are not on a sacred mission to infuse it with truth, goodness, precision or anything else; we are here to report the facts, and that includes the fact that language is not perfect and is often ambiguous and confusing even aside from the cases, like this one, where words are deliberately being abused.

If you cannot find one single solitary person to support you in the next week, then I am going to file an RfC against you. This has gone on too long. If you have problems with Wikipedia as a whole then maybe you should stop participating in it.

That said, if you actually want to show a draft of what you think the intro should look like, I'd be happy to comment on it. – Smyth\^talk 16:57, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia is on the right track and I am doing my best to help it reach its potential. Your attitude of relegating definitions to reports of ambiguous usage is not in line with the best articles of Wikipedia. Take a look at the definition of 'terrorism' and compare it to other articles. What do you see? Everyone I speak with besides you thinks the intro to this article sucks. If there is anyone who likes the intro to the article besides you, Mr. Smyth, I urge them to speak up. The intro conveys nothing.

Everyone I speak with besides you thinks the intro to this article sucks. Then get them to comment here, please, because I haven't seen them yet. – Smyth\^talk 21:57, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Nearly every controversial term will be used ambiguously for propaganda or personal gain, but those terms don't have Wikipedia definitions that suck. How have their authors been able to impartially define the term? They start with objective descriptions that everybody can agree upon. If nothing else, the historical dictionary definition will do. Then, they add things to the introduction which are in agreement with all other editors. Sometimes this makes the introduction very small, but that is better than the biased, factually incorrect, entirely confusing definition of the term that you have up. More subjective explorations can be made in the subsections of the article, but the intro should convey only those assertions upon which all editors approve.

I have tried to start this process several times. Every time, you throw up a smoke screen. If you were working for the terrorists, you couldn't do a better job of confusing a definition of their actions. Without an objective definition of terrorism, it's going to be hard for us to work together to win a war against it, and that is exactly what the terrorists would want.

Let's try again. Assuming that there is nothing yet in the introduction in which we can agree, can we start our introduction by agreeing that 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?" --Zephram Stark 19:57, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

The introduction already contains that. You put it there weeks ago, and nobody has removed it. – Smyth\^talk 21:57, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Using the OED as an agreed definitional source was your idea and we thank you for it. Indeed, nobody has voiced any opposition to it. Now we have one thing that is not in dispute that we can use to start our introduction. I think we are on the right track now. Definitions, and especially the introductions to definitions, are useful when they convey what we do know, not what we don't.

After giving the broad OED definition that covers all types of terrorism, I think it would be prudent to refine the description by listing the various specific types. Does anyone have an issue with doing that? --Zephram Stark 13:37, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Depends what you mean by "various specific types". Show us what you think this list should look like. – Smyth\^talk 17:15, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Imagine using terrorism in a sentence based on the current Wikipedia article. The user of the term would have to pick and choose which parts of the definition she uses. She would have to say something like, "Terrorism, when considered not pejoratively, not unlawfully, including the possibility of governments and violence, but not necessarily the threat of death, is a type of unconventional warfare." She could say the same thing using Webster's definition as, "Terrorism is a type of unconventional warfare."

Using Wikipedia's definition, the user would sound so confusing that she probably wouldn't even bother trying to communicate her assertion. That's why dictionaries and encyclopedias don't list all the conflicting things that the term could be. If some people use the term differently than the historical standard, their exact definition is noted separately and often called something else to differentiate between the two. For example, to differentiate between the standard definition of terrorism and FISA propaganda, a user might say, "Terrorism, as defined by the FISA USA Act, which includes intimidation and the endangerment of human life, but precludes the possibility that it could be initiated by a government upon its own people, is the enemy in the current United States war." This is a bit wordy. Imagine instead, that we helped the user by codifying types of terrorism. If FISA-terrorism was defined as per the FISA USA Act—-activity that appears to be intended to (1) intimidate or coerce the government or civil population AND (2) breaks criminal laws AND (3) endangers human life—-she would say, "FISA-terrorism is the enemy in the current United States war."

Enabling the efficient use of speech is the purpose of dictionaries and encyclopedias. Most of Wikipedia succeeds in making language more efficient, but as you can see in the above examples, terrorism does not. In fact, the introduction of our article is so convoluted that it would make the word meaningless if anyone used Wikipedia to define their terrorism. Can you imagine President Bush declaring a War on Terrorism that could have all these conflicting meanings but not necessarily any of them? Perhaps you could, but that's beside the point. The point is that an encyclopedia is used to make things clearer, not more muddled. As such, we need to objectify the introduction.

• First, first we list a specific overview description, like the OED definition. If we can constrain it further without adding POV, we do so. This tells people what the word means, so they can use it to convey something that could mean any type of terrorism.
• Next, we enable the user to constrain their meaning even further, without confusing the overview. --Zephram Stark 00:01, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

• Political Terrorism is terrorism used to further a political cause. Where Conventional Warfare seeks to reduce an opponent's physical ability to fight, Political Terrorism seeks to coerce compliance in an opponent, either directly through fear of losing life and luxury, or indirectly by prompting the opponent to reduce liberties and increase military/police spending.
• State Terrorism is terrorism used by a government to intimidate its own population.
• State Sponsored Terrorism is a tactic of Asymmetric Warfare that seeks to bring the disaffected populous of the larger force into the conflict.
• FISA-terrorism is terrorism with the added constraint that it is illegal, as defined by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 and updated by the USA Act of 2001. FISA-terrorism appears to intimidate or coerce, breaks criminal laws, and endangers human life. This is the exact definition used to create the USA PATRIOT Act, the War on Terrorism, and the Decree of the Reich President for the Protection of People and State

I cannot see any distinction between "political terrorism" and terrorism in general. Indeed, the article political terrorism, which has received virtually no attention in the last 6 months, overlaps so much with this article that a merge is very strongly indicated. State terrorism is a similarly confused term – one look at that page shows that at least a third of the events listed do not fall under the "state vs its own people" definition.

You would like "terrorism" and all of its subcategories to be defined in a simple and objective way, and I sympathise with that. But if a word is used in a complex and subjective way, as this one is, then the article must reflect that complexity if it is to give a fair view of the facts. We are not the custodians of the English language, and to change it for the better is not the job of an encyclopedia, or even a dictionary. – Smyth\^talk 09:04, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I am not advocating changing the definition, merely codifying it. If there is subjective usage of the term, that should be another category. The current introduction suggests that all usage of the term is subjective, and that simply is not true. Much of the world does not see terms such as these in the absolute context of good and evil.

If we are to assume that all terrorism is for political purposes, and we are to merge this and the Political Terrorism article, I see no reason to keep the introduction of this article at all. The article for Political Terrorism is far superior. However, the Political Terrorism article acknowledges the existence of Criminal Terrorism which has no political motive. Thus, I suggest we first define general terrorism, and then immediately redirect people to political terrorism if that is what they are seeking. I propose that we add a category for your subjective usage, but that we don't force everyone to use terrorism in a pejorative and subjective manner. Terrorism for the War on Terrorism is defined objectively (See FISA-terrorism). Terrorism for the USA PATRIOT Act is defined objectively (See also FISA-terrorism). Political Terrorism is defined objectively. State Sponsored Terrorism has an objective definition (although it isn't part of Wikipedia yet). The only usage of terrorism that doesn't cleanly fit into one of these objective categories is its usage as an inherently pejorative term: violence for the purpose of evil. In that context, it is always used to vilify an enemy and could, therefore, be considered nothing but propaganda. By adding one more category for it, we have codified all usage of the word, thereby making the term usable as a necessary component of the English language.

Terrorism

---

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

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." Additional constraints are added depending on the context of the usage.

• Political Terrorism adds a constraint that terrorism is used to further a political cause. Where Conventional Warfare seeks to reduce an opponent's physical ability to fight, Political Terrorism seeks to coerce compliance in an opponent, either directly through fear of losing life and luxury, or indirectly by prompting the opponent to reduce liberties and increase military/police spending.
• State Terrorism is terrorism overtly used by a government to intimidate or coerce its own citizens, or the populace of an opposing force.
• State-sponsored Terrorism is a tactic of Unconventional Warfare that seeks to bring the complacent citizenry of an opposing force into a conflict through the covert support of third-party terrorist groups.
• FISA-terrorism adds a constraint that terrorism is illegal. As defined by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 and updated by the USA Act of 2001, FISA-terrorism: appears to intimidate or coerce, breaks criminal laws, and endangers human life. This definition was used to create the USA PATRIOT Act, the War on Terrorism and, historically, the Decree of the Reich President for the Protection of People and State. Because of the added constraint that FISA-terrorism must be illegal, it becomes impossible for a government to engage in an act of FISA-terrorism against its own citizens.
• Pejorative-terrorism adds a constraint that terrorism is inherently evil. Even though FISA-terrorism objectively defines the enemy in the War on Terrorism, Pejorative-terrorism is widely used in promoting the war with a vague, subjective meaning of violence for the purpose of evil. Domestic components of the war, Homeland Security and the USA PATRIOT Act, are also widely supported through this pejorative usage of the term.
• Criminal Terrorism is terrorism used for personal enrichment rather than for the more common purpose of political gain. Because the USA Act of 2001 removed the original FISA stipulation that FISA-terrorism be "backed by a foreign power," any alleged potential criminal activity that could possibly endanger human life, could also be considered a potential act of FISA-terrorism, and subject to investigation, before the fact, through the expanded powers of the USA PATRIOT Act.

Feel free to play with the above proposal for a higher quality and NPOV introduction. When we all agree on it, we can update the article. --Zephram Stark 17:27, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I think we've done it. Instead of saying that terrorism "has many definitions," we've listed the various definitions, thereby making terrorism a viable part of the English language again. For the first time in months, we have a Wikipedia definition of terrorism that conveys meaningful information. I'm happy with it, and I'd like to personally thank all of the people who contributed to this exhaustive discussion. If there aren't any objections, I would like to make the above proposal our new introduction for terrorism. --Zephram Stark 21:44, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the neologisms and original research, which are forbidden by Wikipedia policy, leaving the straightforward definitions. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:48, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Please show the courtesy of discussing proposals for substantive changes to the introduction in the talk page before making them. My proposal sat here for three days before I made changes, and nobody expressed any problem with it. I have strong issues with the POV you've added to introduction. Your assertion that neologisms are forbidden by Wikipedia policy is factually incorrect, and there is no original research in the article I ammended. In order to fight the War on Terrorism, we need some way of objectifying the enemy of the war. Your hostile editing is actually aiding and abetting the terrorists by hiding of an objective definition of the enemy, making it impossible to discuss the war in objective terms, and impossible to know who our enemy is and what conditions define terrorism. I urge you to cease and desist your aggressive subversion of the truth. The introduction to terrorism is perhaps the most volatile area of Wikipedia. Common decency demands that you propose substantive changes to it here in talk before making them in the article. --Zephram Stark 17:44, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Whoa! Editing wikipedia is now "aiding and abetting the terrorists"? Who are you, John Ashcroft? Take a deep breath and review the changes. Terms like "FISA-terrorism" do not exist anywhere except your version of this wikipedia page. And there is nothing terrorists will gain from not seeing them on this page.--csloat 17:57, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Subterms of terrorism are used in colleges all over the country. We got tired of saying "terrorism as defined by fisa" and "terrorism as used pejoratively." A long time ago, we abbreviated our speech by saying fisa-terrorism and evil-terrorism or pejorative-terrorism.

A long time ago when? Who is "we"? A quick google search reveals 27 hits, exactly none of which use "FISA-terrorism" in the manner you describe. The way you and your friends abbreviate things to study for an exam does not constitute a notable neologism. Sorry but this stuff must go. Can you even name one counterterrorism scholar or public official who uses these terms in published research? --csloat 18:33, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

How are we supposed to discuss what we are fighting if we don't have definitions for the different kinds of terrorism?69.73.14.145

I appreciate your position here, Commodore Sloat, but I don't think it gives you the right to overpower the Wikipedia writers' rules of engagement. Those of us who have been actively involved in the editing process of this volatile article have agreed to make sure that any proposed changes to the introduction of the article are okay with the other editors before the changes are submitted. I posted proposed changes three days ago and you never said anything. Now that Jayjg, whom I apparently offended by opposing the deletion of another article, is here causing trouble for the agreed-upon definition, you obviously think you have the right to dismiss the work we've done on this for the last month as "silly" and revert the article. Perhaps you have power to disregard the Wikipedia writers' rules of engagement, but if you do, I don't think that Wikipedia is what it purports itself to be. --Zephram Stark 19:05, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Wow, three whole days ago? Anyway, as explained, no-one noticed these suggestions buried in this giant Talk: page. Regardless, objections have now been raised. If you prefer, we can go back to the original introduction until we work this all out. Oh, and I have no idea what other article you're talking about, but it's not really relevant; as I've said to you many, many times before, focus on the article content, not the editor. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:37, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

New suggestions are usually added at the bottom of the Talk: page; I simply did not see your material here. As a courtesy to you, I didn't revert the entire thing, but merely removed the neologisms and original research. Neologisms are indeed forbidden in Wikipedia; Wikipedia is not here to create new terms: A Wikipedia entry (including any part of an article) counts as original research if it proposes ideas, that is... it introduces neologisms. See WP:NOR. As well, your conclusions about the purpose of the various acts were also original research. Also, please avoid personal attacks. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:49, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

There was a ATTENTION tag right at the first of the article. The introduction of neoligisms is forbidden, not the use of neoligisms. If you would like to discuss the extensive prior use of the referenced neoligisms, I would be happy to do so. If you would like to discuss anything that you think is untrue or original research, I would be happy to do so, but please show everyone else the same courtesy that we are showing you in discussing this volatile introduction before changing it. --Zephram Stark 18:00, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, there was an ATTENTION tag on the article, but it wasn't obvious where the discussion was happening. As for your argument, you introduced the neologisms by creating them in the first place; that is what the policy is precisely forbidding. Please don't use faulty semantic arguments to wikilawyer. I've removed all the stuff that uses them, in violation of policy, along with other speculations about what FISA might or might not be about. Please recall that the intent of the article is to present information in a NPOV way, not present theories about the purpose or intent of FISA, or novel ideas about State terrorism. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:45, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I'll just let you hang yourself with that one, Jayjg. Your personal bias is so obvious that your arguments don't even make sense any more. If you have any desire to talk about this rationally, I would be happy to answer any questions you have. If you have real issue with this definition, I would be happy to help review a proposal for a better one. --Zephram Stark 19:23, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Um,ok. If you have any other text you'd like to introduce to the article (beyond the obvious policy violations) please bring it here for discussion and consensus. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:42, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

If you thought something violated policy, you could have brought it up as we refined the details of this introduction over the last month. Your waiting until we had spent hundreds of hours refining the intro without saying anything, and then just deleting large sections out of hand says more about you and your true motives than anything anyone else can ascribe. Like I said, you're doing a fine job of hanging yourself, Jayjg. After all the trouble you cause, imposing your blatantly biased view of reality upon so many articles at Wikipedia and then covering it up by erasing most of the complaints on your talk page, it's comforting to watch you shoot yourself in the foot. Everything you say here betrays your attitude that you don't think you have to play by the same rules of common decency as the rest of us. By simply looking at your list of contributions, it's obvious that you think you can hostile-edit everything that doesn't agree with your agenda, but you're wrong. It stops here. You may have more pull than me because of your position at Wikipedia, but the Wikipedia Writers' Rules of Engagement hold a higher position than you. --Zephram Stark 20:28, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Please focus on article content. Now, what would you like to add to the article that is not an introduced neologism or other original research? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:32, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for being civil about it. As I'm sure you realize, your admin power gives you no more say about definitions than anyone else. Here is the current definition that we have been working on for months—-taking everyone's feelings on the subject into consideration. If you would like to help edit it, please tell us what parts you have a problem with so that we can discuss it. Alternately, you can just change it (below in talk) to your proposal. Thanks again for being civil and for playing by the same rules as the rest of us. --Zephram Stark 21:07, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

That definition has apparently been on the Talk: page for three days, not "months". And while it seems futile, I must one again request that you focus on the article, not other editors. Since you recommend changing it here on this page, I'll the most egregious neologisms and original research from it. The entire thing, aside from the two definitions, is original research, but I'm willing to try to work with this for now. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:13, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

ZS, I've just looked at this article for the first time in weeks, so I'm not sure what's going on, but at first glance, you're trying to introduce a lot of original research. You have to produce credible sources for all your terms (like "pejorative terrorism") and for all the arguments, otherwise it amounts to a personal essay; and whether it's a good or a bad personal essay, it's not allowed.

Also, this discussion was very hard to find and wade through. Perhaps it should be moved to the end of the page? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:20, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

So this summary is editable, but the core entry is not? (Unsigned comment by 68.174.181.136 (talk • contribs))

Another proposal

Terrorism

---

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

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." Additional constraints are added depending on the context of the usage.

• Political Terrorism adds a constraint that terrorism is used to further a political cause. Whereas Conventional Warfare seeks to reduce an opponent's physical ability to fight, Political Terrorism seeks to coerce compliance in an opponent, either directly through fear of losing life and luxury, or indirectly by prompting the opponent to reduce liberties and increase military/police spending.
• State Terrorism is terrorism overtly used by a government to intimidate or coerce its own citizens, or the populace of an opposing force.
• State-sponsored Terrorism is a tactic of Unconventional Warfare that seeks to bring the complacent citizenry of an opposing force into a conflict through the covert support of third-party terrorist groups.
• Criminal Terrorism is terrorism used for personal enrichment rather than for the more common purpose of political gain.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, updated by the USA Act of 2001, defines terrorism as something that appears to intimidate or coerce, breaks criminal laws, and endangers human life. This definition was used to create the USA PATRIOT Act, the War on Terrorism and, historically, the Decree of the Reich President for the Protection of People and State.

Jaygj is proposing the above definition of terrorism over the one that we exhaustively worked on and agreed upon over the last month (found here). As you know, Jaygj is an editor with no more editing authority than any of us (regardless of his attitude). Is there anyone who likes Jaygj's definition of terrorism better than the current one? (Please click on the link to see the current one—-the one that everyone involved finally agreed upon after exhaustively editing it for months) --Zephram Stark 21:41, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

NPOV Arguments

The introduction is propaganda. It is the part that I, and so many other people, have voiced a problem with. It is not objective. It does not convey any meaningful information. It is written from an extreme POV stated as fact that fails to even mention Webster's definition that we've been using for the past two hundred years. The current definition assumes a pejorative stance toward the term and blatantly references biased sources for its most fundamental descriptions. It is, by far, the worst introduction of any major definition in Wikipedia and, arguably, the most important since we are waging a war on "terrorism." --Zephram Stark 21:00, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Codification of definition is essential for efficient conveyance of information. The cumulative intellect of a society is reduced by vague descriptions of words and confusing usage.

For instance, the term "War on Terrorism" relies exclusively on an objective description of Terrorism to define our enemy. Without a definitive understanding of Terrorism, we lose the ability to collectively identify our target or create a winning scenario. The Associated Press proclaimed Sunday, 10 July 05, that a "Terrorism War Might be Endless" for good reason. The destruction of our language through vague and subjective terms negates our ability to even recognize Terrorism, let alone defeat it.

Even though dozens of people have demanded an objective definition for Terrorism at Wikipedia, and even though most dictionaries and encyclopedias have managed to define the word along the lines of intimidation for the purpose of coercion, a few people guard the radically subjective, confusing, and contradictory current Wikipedia definition like hawks. They revert, out of hand, any attempt to quantify or codify the term. They throw up smoke screens of misinformation, personal accusations, and definitional existentialism as excuses for not defining the word. Any attempt to add a second definition to theirs that is not subjective is immediately erased.

The description of Terrorism defines who we are fighting and under what circumstances the war will end. Without an objective definition, there is no winning scenario. Those who categorically delete objective definitions of Terrorism are destroying the NPOV philosophy of Wikipedia and our society’s ability to convey information.

Specific NPOV Disputes

The following are specific disputes with the NPOV of the introduction of the article that either I, or others, originally brought up:

Alright, I will number them for easier reference. – Smyth\^talk 10:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

1. The introduction states that the word "has many definitions." This is not factually correct. Every objective definition of the word for the last two hundred years describes it as something very close to "intimidation for political purposes." Any other definition has been created by propaganda sources and is used for nothing but propaganda. Propaganda is not an NPOV. Certainly the propaganda definitions should be recognized, but not stated as fact.
   • You have obviously set your heart on this wording, but you haven't shown that it's as universal as you say it is. I got the impression that the OED (which is a dictionary of historical meanings as well as current ones) listed its definitions in chronological order. Perhaps Webster does the same, and there are other definitions that you aren't considering? I find it hard to believe that the entry is so short. – Smyth\^talk 10:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
   • I have my heart set on an objective definition for terrorism. I would like to see it convey meaningful information. My preference would be for it to have one definition and for that definition to describe something for which there is no other definition. I have been trying to find your OED definition that means basically the same thing as insurgence and have not been successful. Perhaps you could provide a link. --Zephram Stark 21:08, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
   • Perhaps you could try Googling for it. A copy of the full definition is the very first result. – Smyth\^talk 23:13, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
   • I have spend several days looking for some evidence to support your introductory assertion, "For most of the 20th century, the word was used primarily to describe the attacks of 'a clandestine or expatriate organization aiming to coerce an established government by acts of violence against it or its subjects.'" I can find nothing in Google, in any of my printed dictionaries or in any of my encyclopedias that supports your belief. As far as I can tell, for ALL of the 20th century, the word was used almost exclusively to mean something very close to "the use of terror for political purposes." Would it be too much to ask for a link to the primary source that you used to create this historical generalization? --Zephram Stark 17:18, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
   • I assume you're not accusing me of misquoting the OED, but here it is anyway. A 1998 U.S. law written long before the current situation used substantially similar wording. Encarta is roughly in agreement with the WP article as it stands now, though it settles on one definition from the outset (which excludes governments as perpetrators), and does not discuss the definition in much detail. – Smyth\^talk 20:38, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
   • I don't know what to say, Smyth. The primary sources that you used to create your historical generalizations speak for themselves. All three use definitions of terrorism that are both specific and objective. Your EOD source proves that terrorism, as shown in many recent authoritative examples, is not used exclusive in reference to illegal activities, but is also used widely to describe coercive terror inflicted by established governments. In addition, your EOD primary source gives many recent examples of people who claim to use terrorism, thereby negating your generalization that terrorism is inherently pejorative, and your generalization that terrorism is used exclusively in reference to others. If you shared those links as proof that the current introduction creates a secondary source exaggerated to the point that it becomes an outright lie, you have succeeded. --Zephram Stark 21:10, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
   • You are right about there being an example of the word not being used pejoratively (the Maqis guy), and as soon as the page is unprotected, I will change "always" to "almost always". However, you are wrong about it being used in modern times to describe government actions. Like I said above, the OED is a dictionary covering the full history of the English language, and the definitions referring specifically to governments are terrorist 1a and terrorism 1, both of which are obsolete. terrorism 2 is closest to the definition you support, but none of the nine examples are about government action, and I believe that all six 20thC examples are about the definition I put in the Wikipdia intro, namely terrorist 1b. – Smyth\^talk 21:34, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
   • In your link, the most recent example of terrorism cited was "1977 New Yorker 24 Oct. 35/1 Last week’s manifestations of political terrorism were crowded off the front pages..by more upbeat occurrences." The established junta government of Argentina (1975-1983) was widely referred to as terrorist by its citizens, as well as the governments of Chili, Colombia, Cuba, China, Germany (1920-1942), India, Indonesia (1965-1969), Israel, Mexico (1970s), Syria, and the Soviet Union. The Gladio of Italy and McCarthyism in the United States are often referred to as acts of terrorism. What do you think happens to a terrorist group that becomes powerful enough to become an established government? Because it has made its terrorism legal, does that make it no longer terrorism? --Zephram Stark 22:37, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
   • You have repeatedly failed to do your own research – I found what happened in October 1977 with two minutes of Googling, and I'm sure you can too. It doesn't support your position. As for your other examples, references please. – Smyth\^talk 22:58, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
   • You can find all the examples of state terrorism you need under State_terrorism. Now, will you answer my question? --Zephram Stark 04:32, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
   • State terrorism is a big list of "bad things done by governments", but that is not evidence that government action was a primary or even a common thing to call "terrorism" until the quite recent past. You have made some direct assertions that certain governments in the 20th century were "widely" referred to as terrorists at the time (i.e., not after the retrospective 9/11 redefinition of the word), but you have not supported those assertions with a single reference. You also cited Political terrorism in your edit summary, but if you had actually read the article instead of guessing from its title, you'd have seen that it is entirely about nongovernment actions! – Smyth\^talk 10:14, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
   • As to your question, (if a terrorist group becomes an established government, are they no longer terrorists), I believe the answer, by the most common usage of the word "terrorism", is yes. They may be dictators or totalitarians or fascists or many other oppressive terms, but since getting into government their tactics will obviously have changed, and it is as inappropriate to call those tactics "terrorism" as it would be to call the tactics of the U.S. revolutionaries after gaining independence "insurgency". – Smyth\^talk 10:23, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
2. The vague terms violence and the threats of violence are said to be the only substantial parts of the definition by the Center_for_Strategic_and_International_Studies headed by members with close ties to the U.S. Armed Services. Certainly this is a biased source. Terrorism does not have to include violence. For example, Webster and most of the world would surely consider terrorism to include the murdering of 800,000 Iraqi children through sanctions for the purpose of coercing that government.
   • No, they really wouldn't. They might disapprove of it, but just because you disapprove of something doesn't make it "terrorism". The English language has more than one pejorative word, and by trying to apply it "terrorism" to this instance you're giving it the very subjectivity that you claim to be against. – Smyth\^talk 10:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
   • The use of U.N. sanctions combined with the U.S. targeting of Iraqi civilian infrastructure during the 1990s is the quintessential example of Webster's terrorism. This was raw terror. Sewage treatment plants, destroyed by U.S. bombs, were forced to dump raw sewage into the Euphrates. Sanctions prohibited enough chlorine import to clean the water. Mothers watched their babies die of common diseases that are easily preventable if medicines were allowed to be imported. Estimates of deaths directly attributable to this combination of sanctions and infrastructure bombing are between 1.6 and 2.1 million. United Nations task forces found that over 800,000 of these fatalities were children under the age of five. We did all this to avoid a ground assault. We wanted to depose the president of Iraq through the systematic use of terror. When it failed, we sent in the ground troops to liberate citizens from a leader who would not give in to our demands.
   • What is the difference between the politically motivated terror that we created in Iraq and the politically motivated terror that Al-Qaeda created in our countries? The only one I can see is the size of the perpetrators. Are we going to define terrorism by size? --Zephram Stark 21:08, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
   • Your eloquence is impressive, but while you've convinced me that the U.N. sanctions were bad, even evil, you haven't convinced me that they were "terrorism" in the traditional meaning of the term. From the fact that this was the very first example in your first rewrite a long time ago, I get the impression that you really want it to be mentioned prominently in this article. But it doesn't belong here, so why not go and work on Iraq, or U.N., or Economic sanction? – Smyth\^talk 00:29, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
   • Your assumptions as to my intentions are incorrect. I am not motivated to convince you of anything. I am not motivated to include any specific example. As I've stated quite clearly, and my actions verify, I am here to create an NPOV definition of terrorism. You can help those of us who are trying to resolve the NPOV dispute by suggesting wording that does not create a primary or secondary source. Your entire introduction is a historical generalization which would be considered a secondary source if it were based on axioms or primary sources. Even if the creation of secondary sources were allowed in Wikipedia (which it is not), I can't find any credible evidence to support the assertions you derive. If you are honestly trying to promote an objective introduction for terrorism, I suggest that you help us start from the beginning and add descriptions that can be cited or that are at least generally accepted by other editors. --Zephram Stark 18:55, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
   • It is generally accepted by other editors. I think five people have argued against you now, plus Ruzmanci who has done minor edits to the intro without substantially changing its form. Nobody has argued for you except you and your sockpuppet. – Smyth\^talk 20:38, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
   • Nice try, Smyth, but all the history of discussion is right here and in the archives for anyone to see. We all think your subjective opinion piece is among the worst introduction written for any article on Wikipedia. We all demand an objective definition, and have suggested dozens. Yet, you and your "sockpuppets" play this little game of confusion and misdirection until people get frustrated and stop trying. I can understand why you would war-edit instead of helping us find an amicable resolution if you were getting paid, so I sure hope you are. --Zephram Stark 22:02, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
   • Then go and find someone to support you. I've not had to solicit support from anyone, but I'll now post this article on Wikipedia:Requests for comment to try and get some more people involved.– Smyth\^talk 21:34, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
   • Thank you. --Zephram Stark 22:37, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
   • I think it's working. ;) --Zephram Stark 19:52, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
3. Quoting the Center_for_Strategic_and_International_Studies in the first paragraph, while ignoring Webster's definition, is a quintessential example of how the author's description is defined by propaganda.
   • Fair enough. I agree with what the last editor has done. – Smyth\^talk 10:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
4. Associating terrorism specifically with clandestine or expatriate organizations is pure propaganda. The term started through the use of State_terrorism and has been used to describe all types of intimidation for political purposes ever since.
   • The term started through the use of what is now called state terrorism, but if you think it was primarily used to describe state terrorism until the very recent past then I can't possibly agree. Did people call the governments of the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany or apartheid South Africa "terrorists"? Maybe they do now, but that's only because of the great broadening of the word's usage that you claim to be fighting against. – Smyth\^talk 10:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
   • I have nothing against a broad definition. Broad is not the same as subjective. I have never said that the term is primarily used to describe state terrorism. I said that it includes state terrorism. There are many forms of state control that do not include state terrorism. There are also many forms of insurgence that do not include terrorism. Terrorism is not a synonym of anything else. The word was created because no other term existed to convey the systematic creation of terror for political coercion. We don't need a pejorative term for insurgence no matter how bad the coalition of the willing wants one. We already have a word for insurgence. Terrorism means something else. Just because Bush redefines the words he uses to start wars doesn't mean we have to follow suit. If you are hell-bent on codifying propaganda as a definition, at least propose it as a second definition and not a replacement of the original. --Zephram Stark 21:08, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
   • Please stop citing Bush; I am not one of his supporters any more than you are. Whether we need another word for insurgency, or whether the confusion over this word is good or bad, is not the point. We have to document how the word is (and was) actually used, and I think the article does a pretty good job of that right now. – Smyth\^talk 23:13, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
   • The current article does a pretty good job of stating the "evil insurgency" interpretation of terrorism. The NPOV dispute claims that such an interpretation is used purely for propaganda purposes and should not be stated as fact. Nevertheless, you apparently contention that a vague and subjective "evil insurgency" interpretation is used so much that it must be noted in the introduction, even if it is propaganda. You can certainly make a case for its inclusion, but don't you think Webster's objective definition that we have been using for over two hundred years deserves some mention too? --Zephram Stark 18:55, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
5. Associating terrorism specifically with the coercion of an established government is pure propaganda. The most common form of terrorism, State_terrorism, is exactly the opposite.
   • See number 4. – Smyth\^talk 10:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
6. The author implies (through the use of the word "subjects" as targets of terrorism) that the two would not be the same thing. The Associated Press survey of international terrorism experts disagrees. Those who have been subjugated are among the first to rise up against an established government.
   • I agree that the two are often the same thing. I do not agree that the OED definition implies that they are different: by saying "clandestine or expatriate" it makes it quite clear that the terrorists may be natives of the target country. – Smyth\^talk 10:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
   • It also makes it quite clear that the terrorism perpetrator is not the government of those subjects. This is in dispute. That definition also assumes that the coercion is aimed at the government and not the citizens, which would preclude the 9/11 attack from the definition of terrorism, since no government coercion was apparent. Webster's definition, on the other hand, includes all use of terror for political purposes. As a servant of the people, I understand how bad it sucks to realize that we too have been using methods of terrorism, but we can't redefine the word to preclude our activity. --Zephram Stark 17:33, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
   • Regarding the perpetrator, see number 4. Regarding the target, you're clearly not reading the definition before commenting, because it says the target is "an established government ... or its subjects". – Smyth\^talk 18:12, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
   • Those little dots mean that you skipped some words. In this case, skipping those words lost the meaning. The entire quote was "a clandestine or expatriate organization aiming to coerce an established government by acts of violence against it or its subjects" (OED). The quote claims that the coercion is aimed solely at the government, while the violence could be aimed at its subjects. --Zephram Stark 21:08, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
   • Alright, so if they weren't trying to coerce the government, why did they do it? For kicks? Because they're evil James Bond villains who just want to hurt people? – Smyth\^talk 23:13, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
   • Had you listened to [Osama bin Laden's thoughts on the subject], you would know the answer to that question. If you refuse to listen to both sides of the argument, how can you hope to write an NPOV article about it? --Zephram Stark 23:42, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
   • Osama tapes – if you refuse to do your own research, how can you even have an argument? – Smyth\^talk 10:14, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
7. Claim that terrorism has always been a pejorative term. That isn't factually correct. One recent protest movement said that since the president defined terrorists as those that "are not with us," the whole movement must be terrorists. They considered being called terrorists to be a complement since it meant that they were not with Bush.
   • They are making a satirical point about the subjectivity bordering on meaninglessness of Bush's use. – Smyth\^talk 10:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
   • Perhaps, but you can't have it both ways. Either these guys are terrorists and proud of it, or Bush doesn't get to define terrorism.
   • They're not terrorists. They're saying: "Well, if not being with you means we're with the terrorists, I guess that makes us terrorists, ha ha." This is not of any relevance to the definition of the word, and you still haven't given any real instance of a group that doesn't mind being called terrorists. You must be well aware that any 20th century group that was ever called "terrorist" rejected the word strongly and used more positive ones instead. I'm not going to argue this point any more unless you give a real counter-example. – Smyth\^talk 23:13, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
8. Claim that the definition of the word has broadened due to the War_on_terrorism assumes that the U.S. president has the right to redefine the official meanings of words. He does not. When a president redefines words, it is called propaganda, it is biased, and it is not an NPOV. Propaganda should be noted, but not stated as fact.
   • Read the text: it says the usage of the word has broadened, and this is surely a fact. Whether you think the broadening is a good or a bad thing is not the point. – Smyth\^talk 10:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
   • As per the USA Act, the definitional source for the War on Terrorism, the term has not been broadened. Quite the contrary, it has been restricted to also require the breaking of criminal laws and the endangerment of human life. These are objective definitions. --Zephram Stark 17:33, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
   • Yes, they are. Didn't you say that war on terrorism was destroying objectivity? And didn't you say that defining terrorism to require a breach of criminal laws was "pure propaganda"? – Smyth\^talk 18:12, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
   • Yes, and defining exactly how and when the USA Act redefined terrorism is part of an objective article. Once that objectivity is achieved, "the rats can't hide" in the dark spaces of undefined words. --Zephram Stark 21:08, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
   • Fine, but let's limit this discussion to what the word meant before 2001, because that seems to be where we differ. – Smyth\^talk 23:13, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
9. The implication that the War_on_terrorism somehow broadened the term implies that that war added something to the meaning. In reality, confusion of a term limits its ability to convey information. The term becomes undefined.
   • I agree, but see number 8. – Smyth\^talk 10:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
   • Terrorism as used in the War_on_terrorism is objectively defined in the USA_Act. --Zephram Stark 17:33, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
10. Any attempt to link terrorism to immorality is purely for propaganda purposes. It is not any part of the actual definition of the word.
11. Any attempt to link terrorism to religious motives is purely for propaganda purposes. It's easier to vilify a religious belief than a political belief, but the underlying reason for every act of terrorism is political.
12. Trying to link the term to civilian targets can serve no purpose except to confuse the definition. Civilians are defined differently by each war and each side of each war. For instance, who are the fighters in the War for Globalization?
13. Any attempt to link terrorism to non-governmental perpetrators is purely for propaganda purposes. It is not any part of the actual definition of the word.
14. Claiming that a terrorist act must be illegal is just another way of saying that governments can't commit terrorism. It's pure propaganda.
    • The article does not claim that these last five are all necessary parts of the definition. It says that they are the most common criteria from which official definitions select. This is also a fact. – Smyth\^talk 10:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm not aware of any "official definitions" that use blatantly subjective terms for conveying the fundamental character of terrorism. Can you provide links to any of these "official definitions?" --Zephram Stark 17:33, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
    • The official definitions I've seen are listed in Definitions of terrorism. As you can see, almost any subset of the listed criteria has been used by someone or other. And remember, just because a definition doesn't contain the words "AND THIS IS BAD", doesn't mean that the word isn't being used pejoratively. – Smyth\^talk 18:12, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
    • We don't need a fancier way to say "evil." Terrorism is something that we are pretty much all involved with directly or by letting our representatives do it for us. As such, the term cannot be defined as something evil they do. --Zephram Stark 21:08, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
    • From your point of view, your representatives are "them", in the sense that you oppose their actions. – Smyth\^talk 23:13, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

If we take all the things added to the definition by biased sources—-people trying to hide their acts of terrorism by redefining the word—-and put them in Propaganda, the definition of terrorism would be very simple and straightforward. --Zephram Stark 04:09, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Nobody is going to respond to you unless you say something new. Sorry. – Smyth\^talk 11:45, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Confusion and misdirection are essential tools for usurping freedom. You claimed that you didn't understand when I touched on these topics before, so I've taken the time to expand each of them, hoping that you could now recognize where we are coming from. Instead of working toward codification of this fundamental term, however, you seem to be only interested in confusing and misdirecting the discussion. You're very good at what you do. Maybe you realize who you're working for; maybe you don't. But either way, the result is the same: we have an introductory definition of terrorism that is pure propaganda. --Zephram Stark 14:53, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

The authority we give our president doesn't include that of creating definitions. Any elucidations from a biased source are inherently partial. The introduction of this definition has been obtained almost exclusively from clearly biased sources, and isn't an NPOV! --Serena7 18:35, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Zephram, the use of sockpuppets for edit warring is strongly frowned upon in Wikipedia. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:45, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I have no sock-puppets, Jayjg, as I'm sure someone with access to the IPs can confirm. There are dozens, perhaps hundreds, of people in the archives who have been calling for an objective definition of terrorism. The introductions to Wikipedia articles are for objective definitions. The confusing rhetoric in the introduction of the Terrorism can serve no useful purpose except for propaganda, but I suppose you already know that. I think this issue can be solved by creating two definitions: the time-honored definition and the War_on_terror definition. I urge you to work with us to find an article that works for everyone. Until we can find a compromise that allows for an objective definition along with your propaganda, there is definitely an NPOV dispute. --Zephram Stark 19:18, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Regarding sockpuppets, see [1]. As for the "dozens, perhaps hundreds, of people in the archives who have been calling for an objective definition of terrorism", you seem to be the only saying the current version is not neutral. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:46, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

The current introduction is subjective. We want an objective definition (or set of definitions). You can confuse the subject all you want, but those truths remain and one more: the neutrality of the current article is in dispute. --Zephram Stark 20:19, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

You've claimed this many, many times. No other editor here agrees with you. One editor cannot hold Wikipedia articles hostage. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:22, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I have to hand it to you, Jayjg. You're very good at what you do. You've thrown up so many smokescreens, it's hard to make an objective argument or find anything objective about terrorism. We have to remember that the entire world of definitions is made of constructs, however, and that our job is to add objective definitions to those constructs. In effect, it's easy to tear down the things that Webster built, but is this what we want to do? A great editor helps build stronger definitions so we can more easily convey information. --Zephram Stark 20:35, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

You are conveniently ignoring the manifest fact that it is not merely User:Jayjg who disagrees with your dictates from on high, but everyone, of every ideological or intellectual stripe, who is a) working on this article and b) not you.

If I may be permitted a metaphor, you are the wikipedia equivalent of Richard Nixon. In some eerie, distinctly disturbing way, you have in fact brought everyone together. We all agree that we do not want you attempting to turn this into a dictatorship, with you at the top of the heap. So congratulations on that piece of Sophoclean consensus-building. Other than that ... let's move on. BrandonYusufToropov 20:47, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• I don't think that's fair, Brandon. I would be happy to work with you to come up with a definition that is written from a neutral point of view. Are you agreeable to using Webster's definition as a starting point? --Zephram Stark 23:10, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• No thanks, and not merely because you've been both obsessive and remarkably rude in discussions of this topic. 1) I don't think Webster's has, or should have, any monopoly on reality, and 2) I am profoundly uncomfortable with an opening to the article that doesn't acknowledge the ongoing controversy over how, precisely, this word should be defined. The fantasy that that controversy does not exist, or if it does exist need not be worried about too much, is, in my view, one of those intially small, but steadily deepening wounds that, whenever it cuts a society, inevitably brings about a debilitating, intensifying fever of delusional nationalism. More intelligent questions, please, when it comes to defining this issue, and easy on the certainty sauce. BrandonYusufToropov 23:38, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Would you at least agree with the principle that an encyclopedia definition should not make moral judgments about the term?--Zephram Stark 02:47, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• There are some terms which carry moral judgement (approval or disapproval) of an action with them - murder, theft, justice, bravery. I think "terrorism" is unavoidably such a word too. Just as the issue is sometimes "was the action of killing X murder?" sometimes there is a question over whether a certain action is terrorism or not. --JimWae 03:02, 2005 July 19 (UTC)

• Would you agree that most dictionaries and encyclopedias are able to define terrorism, murder, justice, and bravery in a dispassionate way—-making no moral judgments themselves, but sometimes reporting on the subjectivity of others? --Zephram Stark 13:21, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Dispassionate, yes. Without including terms of disapproval & connotations of immorality, no - that is part of what is meant when an action gets labelled as terrorism - same as with murder. --JimWae 22:06, 2005 July 19 (UTC)

• I looked up many definitions of Murder and they all seem to be objective in their descriptions of the term. The Wikipedia definition of Murder says that it is both a legal and a moral term, but the definition itself does not show disapproval for the act. As I look around Wikipedia, I can't find a single definition that includes implications of immorality that is not also under an NPOV tag. I think that means that editors are doing their jobs, and that Wikipedia can be taken as a serious source of information. --Zephram Stark 23:27, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Surely you're not claiming that derogatory words do not exist? As they do exist, their definitions should reflect the fact that they "include implications of immorality". See Evil (which is not under an NPOV tag). – Smyth\^talk 09:25, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm claiming that terrorism should be written from an objective POV. As such we cannot assume that the term in inherently pejorative. Writing the definition from a pejorative POV is a conflict of interest because it precludes the possibility that the author might be implicated in the definition. --Zephram Stark 17:33, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Truer words were never spoken!

--Serena7 17:52, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg Revert Dispute

On 8 July 2005 User:Jayjg reverted the Terrorism article with this explanation: (Highly POV, original research, and often incomprehensible definitions are "not encyclopedic".) [See History]

I contend that my article adheres to the Wikipedia NPOV philosophy and that User:Jayjg’s reverted article does not. I invite others to work with me to find a definition that we can all agree upon.

I also contend, as do many others, that User:Jayjg uses the revert function to restrict factual and beneficial information that he doesn’t want seen. I point to the following examples as evidence of this.

1. User_talk:Jayjg#Please_stop_edit-warring_with_your_POV.21
2. User_talk:Jayjg#Blocking
3. User_talk:Jayjg#Soapboxing.3F
4. User_talk:Jayjg#Your_Terrorism_Revert
5. WP:Point Vandalism Complaint
6. User_talk:Jayjg#Striver
7. Special:Contributions/Jayjg

I include this evidence to see if you agree with my User:Jayjg contention. If you feel the same way, the next step should be to have him demoted and blocked from articles that he reverts. Your input is appreciated. --Zephram Stark 21:35, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

If you have a problem with him personally, then maybe you should seek comments elsewhere than this page. – Smyth\^talk 22:36, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

It’s really more of a dispute with User:Jayjg’s revert. I had no idea that User:Jayjg did this to other people before I went to his user page and found revert complaints from people all over Wikipedia. In every instance that I read, User:Jayjg had trashed a well-written, objective and NPOV article in favor of a revert that only served to confuse and hide historical facts. Many lucid articles have been lost and good writers have even quit Wikipedia because of User:Jayjg’s persistent reverts to his revisionist history, but that’s between them and User:Jayjg. I’m simply going to do what it takes to make sure his biased views don’t override definitions that I help write. From a NPOV, there is no reason why we can’t come up with an objective definition of Terrorism, or at least a group of objective definitions.

Those who trash constructive and balanced articles, instead of incorporating them, show their obvious distain for the community process and blatant disregard for presenting all sides of an issue. If they keep doing it, we have no choice but to block them from changing the definition. --Zephram Stark 01:31, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

You might want to actually look at those "constructive and balanced" edits before you continue. [2] is vandalism plain and simple. [3] I would not have reverted, but the discussion quickly degenerates into anti-Jewish ranting from the other editor. [4] is simply the removal of an irrelevant, unreferenced and rambling aside, which is neither pro- or anti-Jewish as far as I can see.

Anyway, I will comment no more on this. If you want to make a personal complaint against Jayjg, gather some proper evidence and then see Wikipedia:Requests for comment. – Smyth\^talk 11:28, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I certainly did not read every article that User:Jayjg reverted—-there are simply too many in his contributions—-but I have examples of enough hostile reverts to warrant his being blocked from this definition if he persists on hostile reverts here. I hope it doesn't come to that. --Zephram Stark 13:58, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

As someone who has disagreed frequently and vehemently with User:Jayjg on this page, I think I have a fair amount of experience on this issue. Reverts, yes. Hostile, no. It took me a while to figure that out. But the playing field is a level one. If one disagrees with a revert, one explains why.

Your examples include the sorry business with User:Striver, where User:Jayjg brought a welcome dose of objectivity. I suspect you are not reading all of this material you are quoting, though I'm not going to invest the time necessary to find out. As regards this definition, please make your case here on the talk page like the rest of us, stick to specifics, and if you're interested in blocking someone, make the case for that elsewhere. BrandonYusufToropov 18:59, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Frankly, it is far more likely that you would end up being blocked for violations of the Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Civility policies; take this as friendly advice from someone who is quite familiar with Wikipedia policy and its enforcement procedures. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:42, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your friendly advice, Mr. Jayjg, but I'm quite experienced too. This conversation is entirely relevant to this article. You can try to spin this into a personal attack if you want, but I am only talking about your revert. Establishing that you have a tendency to revert good articles that disagree with your obvious bias is important in understanding why the current definition of 'Terrorism' has such an overwhelmingly vague introduction.

When people come to see how we codify our definitions of freedom, terrorism, al-Qaeda, and democracy, they will get the standard US/UK Military bullshit—-thanks to people like you, Mr. Jayjg—-that these terms cannot be objectively defined.

The United States has gone into debt over two trillion dollars since our war against terrorism started. How are we ever supposed to win against this enemy if we can't even figure out what it is? --Zephram Stark 00:17, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Zephram Stark, the little statement about Jayjg from BrandonYusufToropov is only indicative of him trying to show that Islam is peaceful and cooperative. His motivation for saying what he did, are of no actual relation to what is going on in Jayjg's edit history. TheUnforgiven 02:24, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Introduction Dispute

A definition that claims there is no definition is of no help to anyone. Jayjg, if you have a problem with part of my article, change it, but don't revert it to a non-definition. Terrorism has to be defined as something. Does anyone have a problem with terrorism involving terror? Of course not. So you can at least define Terrorism as something and go from there. When someone takes the time to turn a cop-out non-definition into something that is usefull to a researcher, at least show him the respect to keep the parts you like. I am going to post my introduction to Terrorism here in Discussion and I would like to know specifically which parts you or anyone else have problems with. We can edit it together and make something everyone can be happy with, but saying that nobody agrees on a definition is not an acceptable encylopedia entry. If you choose not to critique the intro below, please refrain from reverting it when I post it to the article.

Terrorism is the use of terror as a means of coercion. While expansions and limitations of this definition are widely used, everyone can agree that terrorism involves terror. Unless we also include horror films, haunted house amusements, and roller coaster rides as terrorism, coercion must also be an essential element of the definition.

Because terrorism has negative connotations, additional constraints are often placed on the definition in order to suggest the guilt of one’s enemy and the innocence of self. For example, in the 1991-2005 American-Middle East conflict, Arabs accused Americans of terrorism through the use of military and economic sanctions resulting in the deaths of millions of Iraqis as a means of coercing compliance to UN preconditions. At the same time, Americans accused Arabs of terrorism through the use of airplanes steered into buildings resulting in the deaths of thousands of Americans.

Because the airplane attack of 11 Sept. 01 included no entreatment, Americans claimed that the Arab imperative of that assault was an implicit charge to either leave them alone or give them money. In stark contrast, the organizers of the attack claimed that the World Trade Towers were “strategic military targets” in their fight against globalization and held absolutely no bargaining value. Thus, a coercive motivation attributed to an act has historically been deemed necessary in order to apply a label of Terrorism.

Additional controversial constraints applied to the definition include:

• the targeting of civilians;
• a political, economic, religious, or ideological goal;
• the exclusion of guerrilla warfare;
• immorality as defined by the user;
• a non-governmental perpetrator;
• violence, or the threat of violence; and,
• in extreme cases, even the exclusion of the coercion constraint.

Conventional warfare is generally considered to be more effective than terrorism because the coercive element of terrorism is hard to control. Two instances, however, where terrorism yields a certain advantage are: as an immediate precursor to an open invasion, and as a means of motivating an overwhelming and often proud force to restrict individual freedoms for the purpose of increasing the ranks of an insurgency. --Zephram Stark 8 July 2005 22:22 (UTC)

Highly POV, original research, and often incomprehensible definitions are "not encyclopedic". Jayjg ^(talk) 8 July 2005 21:31 (UTC)

There is no definition of Terrorism right now. We need a definition. Are you purposefully trying to destroy the philosophy of Wikipedia? We are here to work together to build something productive. Give me an example of something specific and let's work it out together. You have been called out several times because of your POV reverts. It is time that you start working with the members of our community instead of against them. --Zephram Stark 8 July 2005 21:54 (UTC)

The article actually points out there is no universally accepted definition of terrorism, then goes on to discuss the various definitions used. Paragraphs like

Because the airplane attack of 11 Sept. 01 included no entreatment, Americans claimed that the Arab imperative of that assault was an implicit charge to either leave them alone or give them money. In stark contrast, the organizers of the attack claimed that the World Trade Towers were “strategic military targets” in their fight against globalization and held absolutely no bargaining value. Thus, a coercive motivation attributed to an act has historically been deemed necessary in order to apply a label of Terrorism.

are POV, original research, and nearly incomprehensible. Please also read the comments by Smyth below. And finally, please focus on article content, not on me. Jayjg ^(talk) 8 July 2005 21:59 (UTC)

How can I focus on problems with the article, Jayjg? You keep saying that it’s basically all bad. What do you disagree with? In your opinion, did the 11 Sept. 01 attack include any form of entreatment for the Americans to do something differently? Did you think there was explicit coercion involved? Do you think the Americans attributed other motivations to the attacks than the ones I mentioned? Do you think that Usama bin Ladin did not call the World Trade Towers “strategic military targets” in the fight against managed trade? Do you disagree that coercive motivation has historically been associated with the term ‘Terrorism’?

Exactly what do you have a problem with? If you will not tell me, I have no choice but to assume that you are being competitive in nature. Let’s find a NPOV together instead of dismissing a good article as not relevant to the POV you would like the world to adopt. --Zephram Stark 8 July 2005 22:19 (UTC)

Start here: first, read Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Cite sources. Then, find sources for every assertion you make in that paragraph; who said that "the Americans claimed that the Arab imperative of that assault was an implicit charge to either leave them alone or give them money"? Who said this alleged claim was "because it included no entreatment"? Which of "the organizers of the attack claimed that the World Trade Towers were “strategic military targets” in their fight against globalization and held absolutely no bargaining value" and where? According to whom does "a coercive motivation attributed to an act has historically been deemed necessary in order to apply a label of Terrorism." What does all that mean in English? And finally, please avoid commenting on or speculating further about my beliefs or motivations; this is viewed as personal attack in Wikipedia and is forbidden by policy. If you cannot desist from doing so you will find co-operative editing impossible. Jayjg ^(talk) 8 July 2005 22:29 (UTC)

Thank you for finally clearing up the parts that you have a problem with. If you have no knowledge of these facts, I can't imagine how you think you have enough insight to edit someone else's work, let alone revert it out of hand. Nevertheless, I will delete the parts you have a problem with until I can find links to definitive proof of each fact. If you or anyone else has a problem with any other specific part of the definition, I encourage you to speak up. Terrorism needs a definition. Can you imagine opening any other encyclopedia and seeing nothing but vague hedging for the first five paragraphs? I see that you have no problem with Terrorism being linked to the Wikipedia definition of Terror, so we can start our article there. --Zephram Stark 8 July 2005 23:27 (UTC)

Be fair Jayjg, if we all had to go and find sources before we wrote anything, we wouldn't write anything. The problem with his edit wasn't so much that he wasn't citing sources, it was that he jumped straight into a deep discussion of 9/11 and economic-sanctions-as-terrorism before he'd even finished the preliminaries of defining the word. – Smyth\^talk 8 July 2005 23:18 (UTC)

The article as it is says: There is no universally accepted definition of "terrorism", and then goes straight into a detailed discussion of the various definitions that have been used. That isn't a cop-out, it's an accurate reflection of the actual status of the word. Like all other definitions trying to be objective, the use of terror as a means of coercion is not good enough. What's "terror"? The London bombings were, in my opinion, terrorism, but they didn't cause widespread "terror", as in "a state of panic". "Shock and awe", well that's just "terror" in different words. Unless you define "terror" as "bad violence, not the good violence that we use from time to time", your definition is either circular or incorrect. And when you define it as such, your definition becomes the same one as is already in the article's first paragraph: a broad pejorative term, characterising an enemy's actions as being an immoral use of violence. This is a subjective definition, because "terrorism" is a subjective word.

There is one thing in your edit that I think the article lacks right now: a discussion of "terrorism" used to describe actions that are economic, political, or otherwise non-violent. I think that deserves a section under #Definition. – Smyth\^talk 8 July 2005 21:48 (UTC)

I just found Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks/"Terrorist" archive, which makes interesting reading. – Smyth\^talk 8 July 2005 22:00 (UTC)

“The Great ‘Terrorism’ Debate” in the link you provided seems to be centered on how much terrorism is used in different contexts by different people. When we consider these usages in terms of trying to create an NPOV definition, we must discount propaganda. Biased usage of the term for political gain cannot yield a NPOV definition. The only NPOV definition that consistently accounts for some acts in the article being considered Terrorism, while others are not, is that Terrorism is the use of terror as a means of coercion.

Terror is defined separately. A link to it is provided. Definitions are supposed to start out broad/generally accepted, and work their way toward detailed and controversial. That is a far cry from starting an definition by essentially saying, "I don't know."

You start with what you do know. You know that terrorism involves terror. You know that terrorism does not include roller coasters. You can build on that. You don't have to say that there is no definition. That doesn't do anyone any good. --Zephram Stark 8 July 2005 22:02 (UTC)

I followed the link to Terror. It says, a state of panic, or, see Terrorism. That's not helpful.

"Terror refers to a pronounced state of fear, where someone becomes overwhelmed with a sense of immediate danger." This is the Wikipedia definition. It also refers you to terrorism. I'm not sure what you are getting at. Do you disagree with the Wikipedia definition of terror? Are you saying that terror can't be defined, so terrorism can't be defined either? With this argument, it seems pointless to try to define anything. --Zephram Stark 8 July 2005 23:32 (UTC)

The article does not say there is no definition. It says there are many definitions, they vary widely, there are common points between them but none of those common points are sufficent on their own, and no combination of them is universally accepted. It even does what you suggest, starting from the most broadly-accepted criterion (violence), then the second-most broad (immorality) and then the others. – Smyth\^talk 8 July 2005 23:18 (UTC)

Are you honestly suggesting that terror is not a common attribute of all definitions of terrorism? --Zephram Stark 8 July 2005 23:40 (UTC)

For the third time, I am not saying that terrorism can't be defined. I'm saying it can't be defined with a definition that implies that the word is objective. Just look back through the archives of this page and see the endless repetition of arguments caused by other people thinking they've finally found one. If terrorism is coercing someone with a pronounced state of fear, then all warfare is terrorism, all violent crime is terrorism, all childhood bullying is terrorism. And take what happened in London – maybe there was terror for a few minutes in the immediate aftermath, but that quickly gave way to shock, and the most the attackers can have been hoping for in the long term was a slightly heightened sense of unease. talk 9 July 2005 10:06 (UTC)

All warfare does NOT use fear for coercion. Conventional_warfare is conducted by using conventional military weapons and battlefield tactics. The purpose of conventional warfare is to destroy the opponent's military force, thereby negating his ability to engage in conventional warfare. It does not seek to persuade the enemy to give up freedoms. It does not seek to subjugate, coerce, or police. Even though the natural effects of any war can enable these feelings, the purpose of conventional warfare has nothing to do with intentional fear or intimidation.

All Violent_crime does NOT use fear for coercion. Murder is an example of a violent crime that requires neither. If we use Webster’s Unabridged definition—Terrorism: the systematic use of terror as a means of coercion—no violent crime would be considered Terrorism because the terror involved is neither methodical nor is it characterized by a system.

I agree with you that typical childhood bullying fits every classic (pre-9/11) definition of terrorism. In fact, the bully typifies despotic governance as per Webster’s International Dictionary definition of Terrorism: a mode of governing, or of opposing government, by terror and intimidation.

I agree with you that use of the word Terrorism in connection with the recent attack on London is arguable. I personally believe that many people were terrified, and that changes will be made to the law because of that terror. I also believe that the purpose of the attack was systematically carried out in order to motivate changes to the law. Therefore, I believe that the attack on London was a systematic use of terror as a means of coercion.

In every example you give, use of the classic (pre-9/11) definition of Terrorism defines the act perfectly. There is no reason to redefine the term as “there is no universally accepted definition of terrorism," except for political reasons.--Zephram Stark 9 July 2005 18:18 (UTC)

"Terror", in it's normal meaning, is neither necessary nor sufficent. Are you sure you're not subconsciously defining "terror" as "what terrorists do"? Because that is an important secondary meaning now, but it's not one that's useful for defining either word. – Smyth\^talk 9 July 2005 10:06 (UTC)

Now? Does “now” mean ‘after 9/11’? If it does, that’s my point exactly. We can’t redefine words to become more ambiguous to fit political propaganda. Wikipedia’s definitions must be from a neutral point of view. The Introduction I proposed—-before User:Jayjg reverted it in favor of the biased, existing non-definition—-included the common components of every classic (pre-9/11) description along with expansions and limitations proposed by both sides of the post-9/11 redefinition conflict.

I agree that there have been several definitions of Terrorism used over the centuries, but before 9/11 they all included the use of terror and at least some type of coercion. Classic definitions were never constrained to “non-governmental perpetrators,” “unlawful acts,” “premeditated acts,” “violent acts,” “political or religious motivations,” or “the targeting of civilians.” These constraints were only added after 9/11/01 by Americans for the sole purpose of propaganda—-in other words, our beloved president called the attack “terrorism.” How was it terrorism? Where was the coercion? How were our actions against Iraq not in the same category? We needed a new definition of terrorism. That’s where the ambiguity came into play.

I can think of only one explanation for why User:Jayjg would revert a good and NPOV classic definition—-giving equal time to both sides of the controversy—-back to “There is no universally accepted definition of terrorism.” User:Jayjg obviously doesn’t want Wikipedia to have a conclusive definition of terrorism because codifying it in ANY manner would show how our beloved president’s use of the term is inconsistent, contradictory, and brimming with irony.

I’m sorry, Mr. Smyth, but it is unacceptable for Wikipedia’s version of Terrorism to be tied to no objective definition or group of objective definitions, when every other dictionary and encyclopedia is able to do so. It is also unacceptable to bias definitions for political reasons. After all the finger-pointing and smoke-screens are gone, there will be a main definition of Terrorism, and it will be the classic definition. If you want to write Bush’s vague description of terrorism as a side bar, please feel free to do so. --Zephram Stark 9 July 2005 19:05 (UTC)

I am certainly not in favour of Bush or any of the things he has done. I don't know whether Jayjg is, but I'm pretty sure that his reasons for disagreeing with you are the ones he says, not the ones you think. – Smyth\^talk 22:36, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Just so that there is no misunderstanding about this, I am conservative and I voted for Bush as president, but that doesn’t make him good at redefining Webster.--Zephram Stark 03:16, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Just so that there is no misunderstanding about this, I neither know or care what Bush said about terrorism, and I certainly will not be responding to any comments from editors who engage in personal attacks. Jayjg ^(talk) 08:18, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't want to get into a detailed argument about every one of your points because I think you are missing the general point. Yes, I was too strong with my use of "all", but:

• Conventional warfare aims at "terror" if it uses direct large scale attacks to demoralise the enemy, whether the enemy is civilian or military. Furthermore, there are many definitions that use "violence" instead of "terror", and it is even easier to fit warfare into these.
• The rapist uses terror to coerce someone to have sex with him, the robber uses terror to coerce someone to give him their property, and if the criminal commits these acts on a regular basis or as a means of making a living, then they are being systematic.
• I'd have thought that the inclusion of the bully as terrorist was an argument against your definition, so I'll say no more about it. :)

By "now" I meant especially after 9/11, yes, but the same thing applied long before it. "Terrorist" has been used in a strongly negative sense for a long time, and even before 9/11 no-one would use it to refer to themselves or anyone they supported. Now here you are talking about your "classic definition", as if it was the one and only one. Have you tried Googling for define:terrorism? Have you seen how diverse the results are, even the ones that try to be objective? Yes, it would be nice if every word could be given a simple and undisputed definition, but this is not such a word. Saying "look, that's all my dictionary gives", isn't good enough, because a dictionary doesn't have room for the kind of in-depth discussion that we're supposed to provide.

Please try and step back from the immediate problem. Your proposed introduction starts: Terrorism is the use of terror as a means of coercion. While expansions and limitations of this definition are widely used, everyone can agree that terrorism involves terror., but this is clearly not the case, as is shown by the history of this page and others going back years before we came along. Please look at that history and see how many times people have done similar things to you and got hopelessly entangled in arguments like this one. This is the reason why the introduction cannot be as direct as you would like. – Smyth\^talk 22:36, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I agree that there is a place in the article for a "classical" definition, but it would have to be worded carefully and it could not be presented as the primary meaning of the word. Here is a suggestion: acts of sabotage for political or ideological purposes, outside the context of an open war. – Smyth\^talk 23:05, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

I actually said “classic,” not “classical.” Conventional warfare, by definition, uses conventional military weapons and battlefield tactics. Demoralizing the enemy is not a conventional tactic. Your assertion that some definitions use “violence” instead of “terror” is exactly why those definitions cannot be used. The term “Conventional_warfare” is used to describe acts of war that are specifically NOT Terrorism. There is no overlap. We have two distinct definitions so that we can communicate effectively. By blurring the definition of Terrorism, we reduce our ability to convey distinct ideas.

Terrorism is a type of warfare that relies on the target’s willingness to give up its freedom. This is the polar opposite of conventional warfare that assumes the target will fight until it no longer possesses the capability of fighting.

When it comes down to it, Terrorism has an objective definition that is compatible with all pre-9/11 dictionaries and encyclopedias. In addition to that definition, there is a George Bush usage of “Terrorism” which has no objectivity, as evidenced by the inability of anyone to define it.

In the interest of effective communication, I think we should go with the definition that actually conveys information. What do you think? --Zephram Stark 02:51, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I think I see where you're coming from. Let me try and break your argument down:

• By blurring the definition of Terrorism, we reduce our ability to convey distinct ideas. – I agree entirely, but the use of the term in practise is blurred, and the article must discuss this.
• there is a George Bush usage of “Terrorism” which has no objectivity – This is also true, but it is in no way limited to Bush. It's used by virtually all sides, including those that are dead against him.
• Terrorism is a type of warfare that relies on the target’s willingness to give up its freedom. – This is your generalization, and you cannot claim that it is universally acknowledged. The article used to be full of things like this, and it wasn't helping one bit.
• Terrorism has an objective definition that is compatible with all pre-9/11 dictionaries and encyclopedias. – I am starting to come around to this, but your proposed wording, Terrorism is the systematic use of terror for political or ideological ends is no good. I have already gone over the reasons for this, mainly the delegation to the word "terror", which has itself undergone a transformation in meaning to the point where it's virtually synonymous with "terrorism". "Terrorism equals terror" is the simplest of the dictionary definitions, but that does not make it the best.

So what I suggest as an opening is this:

For most of the 20th century, "terrorism" was defined as <definition to be decided>, but was always used in a derogatory sense. More recently, and especially since the declaration of the War on Terror, "terrorism" has become a broad pejorative term, characterising an enemy's actions as being an immoral use of violence. Sometimes it is even used to describe non-violent actions, such as economic sanctions or "cyber-terrorism".

Many attempts to provide an objective definition of the concept have been made. The most common criteria included are:

• The motive is political or religious.
• etc....

– Smyth\^talk 12:42, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Smyth, your suggestion sounds good as an evolving definition from objective to subjective usage, but subjective usage of the term is far from universal. Most people, especially outside of the US/UK, still use the word to convey objective information.

There are two definitions of ‘Terrorism’ in use today. One is the NPOV usage we have expressed for centuries. The other seems to shift, as you say, depending on the user, for the apparent purpose of vilifying one’s opponent. What I hear you saying is that, even though Wikipedia articles are primarily NPOV, the wide usage of the term in a biased context deserves mention. I agree, and would add that the biased claims of both sides must be given equal time.

I have been researching the definition of Terrorism in dictionaries and encyclopedias printed over the last hundred years and have discovered that terrorism has not always been used in a derogatory sense. In fact, in order to achieve a NPOV for the definition, no negative connotation can be given to the definition at all. I have also found that the term ‘terror’ is actually avoided, as you said, because of its ambiguity. Here is the definition common to all encyclopedias and dictionaries that does not use ‘terror’ to describe ‘terrorism’:

Terrorism is defined by Webster’s International Dictionary, Second Edition as: a mode of governing, or of opposing government, by intimidation.

This definition was consistent with general usage from the Reign of Terror in 1793 to the War on Terrorism in 2001. While Webster’s description is still widely used today, a more subjective definition describes the type of Terrorism being fought in the War on Terrorism. For that definition, please see the article on the War on Terrorism.

I think we can all agree that the proposed introduction above is factual and that the point of view is neutral. As much as we would like to use the term ‘Terrorism’ to vilify the enemy, an encyclopedia is not the place for it. Redefining a word for political reasons is biased, even if the redefinition is merely to confuse the meaning. I agree that we must acknowledge every major usage of the word, even if that usage is propaganda-based, but that propaganda does not belong in the introduction of the word. Immediately following the introduction, there is already a Main Article link to Definitions of Terrorism which puts an obvious US/UK Military spin on ‘Terrorism’ by quoting the Center for Strategic and International Studies and the United States Army. With two links to US/UK propaganda in the first seventy words, I think we’re safe in devoting the rest of the introduction to the NPOV definition adopted by all other dictionaries and encyclopedias.

If anyone has a problem with using a non-political, neutral introduction to ‘Terrorism’, please speak up now. Otherwise, I will add the above NPOV introduction to the article on Monday and take off the NPOV dispute. --Zephram Stark 16:31, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

You are confusing Wikipedia's policy that articles must not be POV, with a nonexistent policy that articles must avoid defining words as being POV. See, most obviously, Bad and Evil. In case it wasn't already clear, I totally agree with the separation of the objective and subjective definitions, but I think we must be extremely careful before picking one objective definition and holding it up as authoritative.

You say you have been researching definitions. This is good; can you please give us more than one, and especially some examples (other than the French revolutionaries) of the word not being used perjoratively. Whatever a dictionary says, I'm sure you'll agree that, at least since the mid-20th century, it was exceedingly rare to describe an oppressive government as being "terrorism", and I suspect you have only given us a small excerpt of the Webster's definition.

The OED gives two definitions under terrorism. One is equivalent to the one you gave from Webster's. The other goes: a policy intended to strike with terror those against whom it is adopted; the employment of methods of intimidation. Neither of these really describe the subject of the article.

However, the OED's "terrorism" references it's entry "terrorist", which says: the term now usually refers to a member of a clandestine or expatriate organization aiming to coerce an established government by acts of violence against it or its subjects. I think this is an excellent description of the most common pre-9/11 usage, better than any I have seen (or written :) so far. – Smyth\^talk 17:26, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Exactly; the NPOV policy does not state that one cannot define words as POV. As well, is not about asserting one particular POV (or definition) as being the "correct" one. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:40, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

After thousands of lines of trying to consolidate an introduction for the definition, the only thing we all agree upon is that there is no single definition. Nevertheless, all definitions fall into one of two categories, the objective and the subjective. We can’t fight about this any more. If there is no single definition, we will have to use two definitions. To that end, I have changed the article to include two equally represented, yet separate, definitions. Since both sides of the issue claim that the other has a biased POV, the only way to solve our quandry is to give each side equal time. This is a good starting point for finally defining this term. You may modify these definitions all you want, but do not revert. Trashing a good start to a solid definition in favor of a non-definition can only be considered hostile editing. --Zephram Stark 01:24, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately you were reverted, probably because you did it straight after an anonymous editor had been adding inflammatory statements and people were in a revert mindset. I liked your listing of the various objective definitions, but I'm afraid the two-column table format is a bit crude. I will try again. – Smyth\^talk 09:57, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree that a two-column format is unusual, but this is a unique circumstance. Terrorism is arguably the most controversial word in the encyclopedia. The editors fall into two distinct camps that refuse to acknowledge the right of the other camp to exist.

• The 'Objective Definition' camp believes that Terrorism can be defined objectively. It does not believe that there are many definitions. According to this camp, there is the singular definition adopted by pre-9/11 dictionaries and encyclopedias, and there is political propaganda. Propaganda belongs in the description of a word only to show how the meaning is perverted by some groups to vilify each other. This camp believes that adding subjective constraints to the definition of Terrorism purposefully confuses the term for political gain.
• The 'Subjective Definition' camp I can’t speak for because their convoluted and contradictory descriptions of Terrorism seem just asinine to me.

And that is exactly my point. The Objective camp says the Subjective Camp is POV while the Subjective Camp claims the same about the Objective camp. Neither acknowledges the right of the other to have any part in the definition, so the definition keeps getting reverted back and forth. Many people have tried several times to find some common ground and have failed. Yet, we all have to exist in the same world, even when our realities don’t intersect. Since the Objective camp demands that it have the primary definition, while the Subjective camp demands that it have the primary definition, the only solution is to have two primary definitions.

Objective Definition

Subjective Definition

Terrorism is the systematic use of intimidation for the purpose of governing, opposing government, or as a type of warfare. Terrorism used for governing is often called State Terrorism. Terrorism used for opposing government is often called an Insurgency until it becomes overwhelming, in which case it is called a Revolution. Terrorism as a type of warfare is the opposite of Conventional warfare in that Terrorism relies on the target’s willingness to give up its freedom while conventional warfare assumes the target will fight until it no longer possesses the capability of fighting.

Terrorism is violence for the purpose of evil. It may or may not include a political or religious motive It may or may not include civilian targeting It may or may not include intimidation directed at a government or society It may or may not include a non-governmental perpetrator It may or may not include an unlawful act as defined by the user It may or may not include premeditation It may or may not include immoral action as defined by the user Subjective Terrorism is used to show vicitimization of self and vilification of the enemy. As such, it is purposefully vague. See War on Terrorism.

I propose that we create a special rule for this uniquely volatile word that each editor may revise their chosen half of the introduction, but may not revise both sides. Does anyone have a problem with trying this instead of the current method of revision warring? --Zephram Stark 13:52, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Please look at the version I did a few hours ago. I think it covers all of your points, and the first definition it gives is even your "singular definition". It's certainly preferable to the large-scale split that you propose. – Smyth\^talk 14:01, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I think that's perfect for the Subjective Viewpoint, Mr. Smyth. It covers all of the official US/UK Military propaganda and purposefully-subjective confusion:

• many definitions
• the vague terms violence and the threats of violence as the only substantial parts of the definition
• reliance on government agencies for a foundation instead of Webster
• claims that most people use the word in a subjective manner
• claims that subjective usage of the term has been around for "most of the 20th century"
• associating Terrorism specifically with clandestine or expatriate organizations
• coercion of an established government
• coercion of government "subjects"
• implication (by use of the word "subjects") that subjugation is a stable form of government
• implication (by use of the word "subjects" in contradiction to terrorists) that the two would not be the same thing
• claim that "Terrorism" is a derogatory term (even outside of propaganda)
• claim that "Terrorism" has always been considered derogatory
• claim that "Terrorism" is necessarily linked to immorality
• implication that confusing a term is broadening it instead of limiting its ability to convey information
• confusion of the term by subjectively linking it to political or religious motives (instead of the base human need for independence)
• confusion of the term by subjectively linking it to civilian targets
• confusion of the term by subjectively linking it to non-governmental perpetrators
• confusion of the term by subjectively linking it to an unlawful act

I have put your subjective viewpoint in the subjective side of the definition. Since you obviously can't fathom an objective definition, just as I can't fathom yours, please limit your revisions to the Subjective side and leave the Objective description to people who think the definition can be codified. Thank you for showing the same amount of restraint as me so that this matter can finally be put to rest with an amicable solution that is fair for both sides. --Zephram Stark 15:11, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you've lost me completely. You don't solve disputes by saying, "Look, here's my version and here's yours. We will put them side-by-side in the article, and because we have irreconcilable differences, nobody but me can edit my side." Normally I do not revert anyone more than once, but I see I have the support of other people on this issue. Nobody can unilaterally declare a dispute to be over.

As I understand it, the OED definition is exactly how the word was conventionally used in the past. I thought it was as objective as anything else, not even containing words like "unlawful". Yet even this definition was used in a purely derogatory sense. Surely you are not suggesting that groups or their supporters actually called themselves "terrorists"? As the OED points out, the term was first used to refer to repressive government, but that is not the subject of this article. – Smyth\^talk 16:39, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

"I'm sorry, you've lost me completely." -Smyth

Exactly. You've said above in this thread that you don't understand State Terrorism. You've shown that you don't understand Conventional Warfare by defining it in exactly the opposite terms of any dictionary or encyclopedia definition, and it's quite obvious that you don't understand the ties between insurgency, revolution and terrorism.

It is not my place to teach you, Mr. Smyth. If you want to keep believing that terrorism equals evil or any of the other derogatory terms you want to associate with it, you go right ahead and do that on the subjective side of the definition. Anyone who understands the objective definition of terrorism is free to edit the left side of the definition.

Everyone is represented here. Everyone can edit their claims. There is no NPOV dispute. This is the only way we will solve the dispute. Do not delete the objective definition. --Zephram Stark 17:56, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Stop unilaterally declaring that the argument is settled – this is clearly not the case, as three separate people have now reverted your change. I do not believe that terrorism is an entirely subjective term, and you have convinced me that a simple objective ("classic") definition should be the first one to appear in the article. But you don't seem to agree that the OED definition is objective enough, and like Jayjg, I think your objections are nonsense.

As I see the intro just now, it runs like this:

1. "Terrorism" is a controversial word.
2. It was for a long time defined objectively as <OED>, but it was still only used pejoratively.
3. It is now used pejoratively to refer to a much wider range of actions.
4. But many recent attempts to return it to objectivity have been made.
5. Here is a summary of the criteria used by those attempts.

This gives plenty time to both the objective and subjective sides, without the total split of your version. – Smyth\^talk 18:20, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps the problem lies not with the reader, but with the text itself. Insertions must, among other things, be comprehensible to be useful; your proposed additions have so far failed that crucial test. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:03, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Anyone who understands these concepts is free to edit them. You have said that you don't. --Zephram Stark 18:06, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, anyone is free to edit the article, regardless of your statements about who can or cannot do so. However, no-one is free to insert arbitrary original research into the article, since that violates policy. I certainly understand the argument you are trying to make about "objective" vs. "subjective"; however, in practice it seem to be original research, not particularly consistent, and in fact a strawman set up to define your invented definition as correct, and all other versions as silly. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:12, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

That’s fine, Mr. Jayjg, because I think your claims are silly too and have no place in an article about Terrorism, but you don’t rule Wikipedia. If we can’t agree, we have to compromise or keep fighting. I would rather compromise. A compromise means that all sides of the argument get an equal say. That means that you can’t delete the objective definition that most people in this discussion say exists.

I have added an NPOV dispute to the article if that makes you happy, but I would really like to hear anyone who claims that dispute when there is both an objective and a subjective definition. --Zephram Stark 18:22, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

On Wikipedia compromise means consensus; that is agreement among a significant majority of the article editors. I've yet to see that for your insertions. As well, and for the nth time, please source some of your original research on this dichotomy in definitions. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:29, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

This whole "Subjective" vs. "Objective" division of definitions is entirely arbitrary and appears to be pure original research. Who divides the definitions of terrorism this way? What differentiates one type from the other? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:30, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

An objective definition is one that defines terrorism in terms of objective criteria. A subjective definition is one that defines it in terms of how the user views those to whom he applies the word. I divided the #Definition section like this, because the article was littered with the random thoughts of users writing things like "... so what really distinguishes terrorism is ...", and it was making the article look self-contradictory.

I think it's a useful distinction, but it obviously shouldn't go as far as this wholesale division of the article. – Smyth\^talk 17:39, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Why for example, is targetting of civilians listed as a "subjective" criterion? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:55, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

It isn't. I can't imagine why Zephraim thinks it is. – Smyth\^talk 18:20, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Would you consider the sanctions against Iraq from 1991 to 2005 to be terrorism? It was the targetting of civilians for the purpose of intimidation. It has been described as terrorism and has directly resulted, according to the United Nations, in the deaths of over 800,000 children under the age of five.

Some people would not consider this terrorism, Mr Jayjg, even though they consider the targeting of civilians to fall into that category. Therefore, the use of that part of the definition is subjective and falls into the Subjective Definition category. --Zephram Stark 18:13, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Aside from the dubiousness of the claims themselves, civilians certainly weren't directly targetted by these sanctions. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:15, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Like I say, Mr. Jayjg. I'm not here to teach anyone. Do your own research if you ever develop an interest in more than propaganda. --Zephram Stark 18:22, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

That everyone does not agree that a definition is correct, does not mean that the definition is subjective in itself. Yes, not everyone agrees that targetting civilians is a characteristic of terrorism. Not everyone agrees that the content of your definition is terrorism either. I don't know why you think the one you have picked is special. – Smyth\^talk 18:24, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

You say that you have read through the mountains of arguments on this, Mr. Smyth, so you must recognize that some people think the definition can be objectively defined while others think it cannot. These two sides will never agree. If you want to stop the fighting, let both sides have a voice. --Zephram Stark 18:42, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

<sarcasm>That's obviously because you don't understand it. Therefore you have disqualifed yourself from editing it.</sarcasm> Jayjg ^(talk) 18:29, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Solving the definition problem

Terrorism is entirely distinct from other types of -ism, because it is used exclusively in a third-party context, and because no-one self-identifies as a terrorist. Additionally, as the intro does point out, it is used exclusively with negative connotations. It usually also implies a negative moral judgement. If all these 4 points are recognised, then it is possible to construct a non-controversial definition of terrorism, because what is being described is 100% attributive and judgemental. What the introduction needs is a description of what is usually said about terrorism, especially in the most relevant context of government policy. The best starting points are the western government definitions, not because they are necesarily true, but because they have the most impact on what happens in the real world.

It is a fact that the US has an anti-terrorism policy, and it is a fact that they regard Al-Qaeda as terrorists, and it is a fact that they use a definition of terrorism for that purpose. So what is controversial about quoting this definition, and others such as the EU definition, and attempting to distil their common elements? It will end up with something like the current list anyway, because those are indeed the recurring themes in many definitions. Ruzmanci 15:20, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with most of what you said, but Zephraim has convinced me that we do need a fairly simple narrow definition such as the OED's, just to show what the current confusion grew out of. Of course, you are right that even this definition was used with derogatory implications that were not contained in the definition itself. – Smyth\^talk 16:43, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I've seen a lot of high-handed edits in the last year ...

... but this may take the gold medal.

• "Please make further edits to only your side of the argument. If you can’t understand the other's claim, you can’t edit it."

Are there any other NPOV disputes you plan on "solving" in this manner? Can you warn us ahead of time, so we can be sure to dodge the shrapnel? BrandonYusufToropov 16:17, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm just trying to make the intro of Terrorism NPOV, Brandon. If there is any shrapnel, it isn't coming form me. --Zephram Stark 18:57, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I know, I would be annoyed if it wasn't so ridiculous. "Here ends the NPOV dispute" indeed. – Smyth\^talk 16:27, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

If there is anyone who thinks my last article wasn't NPOV, I would like to hear why. I think it was the first article that gave both sides a voice. --Zephram Stark 18:57, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Not eager to be the punching bag on this one. Can someone else please revert it? BrandonYusufToropov 16:41, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

His whole approach on this page has been incredibly high-handed; his definitions are "objective" and meaningful, others are "subjective" and meaningless. I suppose I would have been more offended by his continuing personal attacks on me as well, but the fact that he classed my reversion of his edits with this reversion:[5] significantly improved my mood. At least he and I agree on something. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:35, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Somebody ban this guy

# (cur) (last) 18:04, 11 July 2005 Zephram Stark (Your hostile editing will no longer be tollerated, Mr. Jayjg. There is an objective definition for Terrorism. Do not edit something you, yourself, have said you don't understand. This isn't a revert)

1. (cur) (last) 17:58, 11 July 2005 Jayjg m (see talk:, and please do not violate the Wikipedia:Three revert rule)

# (cur) (last) 17:43, 11 July 2005 Zephram Stark

1. (cur) (last) 16:40, 11 July 2005 Smyth (rv, you can't do that, see talk page and stop being in such a hurry)

# (cur) (last) 15:17, 11 July 2005 Zephram Stark (Put the Subjective POV in the Subjective Side. This ends the NPOV dispute. Please make further edits to only your side of the argument. If you can’t understand the other's claim, you can’t edit it.)

1. (cur) (last) 14:50, 11 July 2005 62.195.75.49 (New subsection on categories of stated motives)
2. (cur) (last) 14:18, 11 July 2005 Ruzmanci (Note that the word refers to others)
3. (cur) (last) 14:16, 11 July 2005 Smyth m (→Subjective - typo)
4. (cur) (last) 10:30, 11 July 2005 Smyth (See Talk:Terrorism#Introduction dispute)
5. (cur) (last) 07:45, 11 July 2005 Idleguy
6. (cur) (last) 06:49, 11 July 2005 Humus sapiens m (RV edits by anon to the last ver. by BYT)
7. (cur) (last) 06:32, 11 July 2005 68.4.77.238
8. (cur) (last) 02:24, 11 July 2005 68.162.181.174
9. (cur) (last) 02:03, 11 July 2005 BrandonYusufToropov (rv to will -- second and last of the day for me -- other editors please monitor this article)

# (cur) (last) 01:27, 11 July 2005 Zephram Stark (After trying for weeks to find a single definition, we have divided the introduction into two equal but seperate definitions)

-BrandonYusufToropov 18:11, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

It appears to me that that is one edit, and then three reverts. But he's certainly been warned at least twice now. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:16, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

You're correct -- I miscounted. But the night is young. BrandonYusufToropov 18:25, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

And two @#$%^&*( minutes later he reverts again. BrandonYusufToropov 18:31, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Do you want to report him? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:35, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

It would be an honor. Can you give me the link? Rookie that I am. BrandonYusufToropov 18:37, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Try looking up the definition in any dictionary before 9/11, Brandon. You can't redefine reality by changing the definition in Wikipedia. There were books published before the "War on Terrorism." --Zephram Stark 18:36, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Tell, you what, I'll do it this time, and you can watch what I do so you'll know what to do next time. That will also give him plenty of time to revert himself. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:49, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, missed your note: did it here. Look ok? BrandonYusufToropov 18:57, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

OK,I fixed it up. Here are tips for next time:

• The diffs need to be between the same version; that is, you need to show he reverted to a previous version, not simply that he modified the article.
• You need to include the times of the reverts, so it's easy to see it all took place within 24 hours.
• It's good to include a comment explaining the flavour of the conflict, particularly if the reverts aren't to 100% identical versions (they usually aren't).

Hope that's helpful. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:10, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Many thanks, Jayjg. Appreciate the help. BrandonYusufToropov 19:11, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, he appears to be using IPs to revert now: 206.176.211.72 (talk • contribs). Jayjg ^(talk) 19:25, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I've got a better idea, Mr. Jayjg. Instead of playing war with Wikipedia, why don't you tell me what you think is wrong with the article you keep reverting? --Zephram Stark 18:52, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Leave off the box

Whatever definition gets worked out, the box has got to go. Only one editor is advocating for it, and thankfully it seems gone for the moment. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 19:44, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Discussion about new intro and original research

Why don't we start discussion of a new introduction down here, where everyone can easily find it and edit it. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:30, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

(copied from above) ZS, I've just looked at this article for the first time in weeks, so I'm not sure what's going on, but at first glance, you're trying to introduce a lot of original research. You have to produce credible sources for all your terms (like "pejorative terrorism") and for all the arguments, otherwise it amounts to a personal essay; and whether it's a good or a bad personal essay, it's not allowed. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:38, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

(copied from above) Jaygj is proposing the above definition of terrorism over the one that we exhaustively worked on and agreed upon over the last month (found here). As you know, Jaygj is an editor with no more editing authority than any of us (regardless of his attitude). Is there anyone who likes Jaygj's definition of terrorism better than the current one? (Please click on the link to see the current one—-the one that everyone involved finally agreed upon after exhaustively editing it for months) --Zephram Stark 21:41, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

ZS, rather than comparing versions and talking about who may or may not have agreed, can we start with the basics? Original research isn't allowed, so any definitions and arguments have to be sourced. Yours weren't. The best thing, in my view, is to go back to the version I reverted to, and try to rebuild it from there with sources. Or do you have an alternative suggestion (that's consistent with our policies)? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:48, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

There is no original research or anything that is not exactly in line with Wikipedia policy. If you think that there is, please tell me what part you have a problem with. Blanket accusations only serve to betray an ulterior motive. --Zephram Stark 22:01, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi ZS, the parts of your edits I had a problem with were the parts without sources. Please supply authoritative sources for any terms like "pejorative terrorism," and for any of the definitions and arguments. The rest of us should do the same, and that will reduce the disputed areas. Scholarly sources would be best for an article like this, but at the very minimum we should use counter-terrorism experts, good newspapers, the United Nations, and so on. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:09, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

ZephramS, you created your new proposed introduction 3 days ago, buried deep in the Talk: page, with this edit.[6] Since then User:Smyth has not edited Wikipedia, and no-one else noticed your proposal. Claims that anyone else besides you worked on it, or that there was any sort of consensus that people "agreed on after exhaustively editing it for months", is mere sophistry; please refrain from it in the future. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:52, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Instead of the personal attacks, which anyone can see are not true, could we concentrate on the issue at hand? Could you be a little bit more specific about the changes you would like to make? As far as I know, everything in the accepted version is fact, but if you disagree with something, please just give me a specific example and we can change it to make it better. --Zephram Stark 21:58, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not proposing changes to the version that has existed in the article for weeks now, since at least July 5.[7] If you want to make changes to it, please propose them here, where they will be obvious to all editors. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:11, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Zephram, are you also editing as User:67.162.68.209? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:13, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

OK - with all of the above out of the way can we actually talk about the substantive issues? It doesn't matter (to me anyway) who violated wikipedia policy first. The question at hand is whether such things as ZS suggests should be in the intro. I do not think they should. They are terms that are probably made up by the wikipedia editor. They do not appear in google to be used this way. We have testimony from only one anonymous editor who claims to use these terms in "philosophical discussion." I've been studying counterterrorism literature for several years and have never come across these terms. I asked specifically for the name of a single scholar or counterterrorism expert or public official who uses the terms in this way, and instead was told I was violating wikipedia policy. We still don't have a response to this question. This is original research at best. I would go even further than the edits because the term "criminal terrorism," while perhaps more useful than the idiosyncratic "FISA-terrorism" or the ludicrous "pejorative terrorism", is still not a term that appears in any substantial body of literature on the topic used in that particular manner. A google search gets about 5,000 hits, but I don't see any of them using it in the way described on this page. My guess is this is somebody's college paper or something. --csloat 22:16, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

So what do you want to call them? They are specific and separate usages of the term. Should we pretend that they don't exist as per Jaygj's edit? --Zephram Stark 22:26, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Zephram, please read and adhere to Wikipedia:No original research. There's very little more to be said. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:31, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

I certainly have and I certainly do. I think that is obvious to anyone, especially since you apparently can't produce a single specific example of your allegations that there is original research. It's probably because you realize how silly you would look if you said that nobody uses the term "terrorism" to mean violence for the purpose of evil. --Zephram Stark 22:52, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

There are several examples -- "fisa-terrorism", "pejorative terrorism" and "criminal terrorism." You do not seem able to produce even a single example of these terms actually being used in this manner, and in fact I have produced evidence suggesting they are not. --csloat 22:55, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Terrorism is widely used to mean the FISA definition, but not all the time. When it is used that way, it is used to mean exactly that; there is no ambiguity. Likewise, terrorism is also widely used to mean the pejorative definition, but not all the time. When it is used that way, it is used to mean exactly that; there is no ambiguity. Do you suppose that the people in the state department just say "terrorism" when they want to convey that they mean exactly the definition of FISA-terrorism? Do you suppose that, in saying it and writing it tens of thousands of times a day, that they say, each time, "terrorism as defined by FISA?" I can assure you that the state department says FISA-terrorism if that is the exact definition that they want to get across. You can argue that they don't because you don't think there is enough proof, but there is one thing that I'm sure you will agree with me on: the definition used by the people in the state department is NOT "has many definitions, none of which are universally accepted" or "attempts to define the term typically involve some subset of many criteria of which accuracy and relevance are all disputed." The term "terrorism" is used to mean things that are quite specific. Saying that the term is inherently ambiguous is factually-incorrect. It is used to mean several very specific and completely separate things. That is what the definition needs to convey. --Zephram Stark 23:16, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Can you provide examples of the usage of these neologisms? (FISA-terrorism, pejorative terrorism, criminal terrorism). Jayjg ^(talk) 23:18, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

He has been asked to several times now and still has not. I am guessing he can't. There are no examples that I could find on google, and I would certainly be happy with examples from books or scholarly articles but they don't exist either. See my comment below - his claim that the State Department uses "fisa-terrorism" is completely false. --csloat 02:10, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Examples of Admins who think they are above the Rules of Engagement

Please read Wikipedia writers' rules of engagement and compare that to what you see admins doing in this section. Please note that an admin is bound by exactly the same rules as everyone else. Admins are not here to manage us. Wikipedia was created in such a way that nobody can gain power over another person. Everyone here is equal in their editing power. Every person in Wikipedia is responsible to every other person. When you see an admin trying to abuse his power, as you see here, you have every right to remind him that he plays by the same rules of engagement as everyone else. If the people involved in the exhaustive editing of an article have agreed to propose changes in talk before submitting them to the article, and a trouble maker brings a couple of friends by and disrupts that process, continuously reverts the article in defiance of everyone else, and refuses to propose any constructive solutions, they are the problem whether they claim to have special powers or not. Don't let anyone tell you different. At Wikipedia, everyone has an equal voice. --Zephram Stark 03:14, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Examples of problematic edits

Zephram, look at this section as an example of the problems with your editing:

Pejorative-terrorism adds a constraint that terrorism is inherently evil. Even though FISA-terrorism objectively defines the enemy in the War on Terrorism, Pejorative-terrorism is widely used in promoting the war with a vague, subjective meaning of violence for the purpose of evil. Domestic components of the war, Homeland Security and the USA PATRIOT Act, are also widely supported through this pejorative usage of the term.

Problems: (1) You need to produce a source showing the term "pejorative terrorism" is in use; (2) the section is U.S.-centric, referring only to U.S institutions and calling them "domestic"; (3) what is meant by "adding a constraint," and to what is the constraint being added? (4) reference to the "enemy" is POV; (5) reference to the War on Terror is arguably U.S.-centric again; (6) "evil" is not defined; (7) what is the difference between "evil" and "inherently evil"? (8) you don't say what you think an "objective definition" is; (9) what's a "domestic component of the war"? (10) and in what sense is the component, whatever it is, being "supported"?

There's more, but that's a sample of the issues, and your other sections suffer from the same lack of clarity. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:44, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

I think everyone is aware of the issues, but what are the solutions? We've been back and forth about this for a month and we finally came up with the definition that everyone agreed was the best. Now you come and say it has issues, but you don't offer any solutions. Are we to start all over again? What is your solution to the problem? We can't pretend that terrorism isn't used pejoratively. We can't pretend that everyone who uses the term ascribes the non-descript meaning of the old definition to it. We can't pretend all usage of the term is vague and undefined. The old definition does not work. It is not true. When people say "terrorism," they actually mean something. Our job is to articulate what they mean. The meanings are not all blurred together. The usages are exact and different. How do you codify that? That is what we have been discussing in this mountain of intercourse, including the four pages of archives. Our solutions may not be perfect, but they are the closest thing to the truth of the usage that we have found. If you can suggest something better, please do. Until then, please leave the best definition of the term on the article page. --Zephram Stark 01:15, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

But that isn't your version, which violates our content policies Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view; and by using sockpuppets and anon IP addresses to back you up, then claiming consensus, you're not editing in good faith. I agree that there are problems with this page, but your edits made those problems worse. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:35, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Zeph - my solution to the "problem" is to eliminate your bogus edits. The only "problem" is the one caused by neologisms that you made up and would like to make everyone else use. You are correct that there are different definitions of terrorism, and it is reasonable for an encyclopedia to discuss various definitions, but it is not its role to make up categories in order to satisfy one editor's view of what makes the most sense. You say "FISA-terrorism" is used by the State Department -- sorry, but I call BS on that one. Please cite a single State Department publication that uses this phrase in that way. They publish millions of pages of documents; it should be easy to find one that uses this term if you think it is so widespread. If you want to have a section on the FISA definition that is entirely reasonable but it is not reasonable to make up shorthand to refer to it as if that were used in the literature. Making up further crap like "pejorative-terrorism" and "criminal-terrorism" may satisfy your need for aesthetic symmetry, and is reasonable in a position paper you write for a seminar, but it really doesn't belong here. It's entirely reasonable to cite scholarly analyses that break down terrorism into various definitions, but it is entirely inappropriate to pretend that this particular definitional taxonomy is commonly used and accepted.--csloat 02:10, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Look what I just found on SlimVirgin's home page, "We're not here to rewrite history. Wikipedia is reproduced all over the Web without editing and often without attribution, which means our mistakes spread fast, leading readers to think they're seeing confirmation of something when all they're getting are false echoes. If we want a reputation for accuracy, we have to check our facts and cite our sources."
Yet, looking through the edit history for this article, we see this:

• 22:11, 22 August 2005 SlimVirgin (Reverted edits by 67.162.68.209 to last version by SlimVirgin)
• 21:32, 22 August 2005 SlimVirgin (Reverted edits by 67.104.83.235 to last version by SlimVirgin)
• 21:03, 22 August 2005 SlimVirgin (as suggested, reverting to 08:19 Aug 21 version)
  

In all three cases, SlimVirgin reverted this description of terrorism for this one. Which article do you think cites sources better? Which article do you think is factually correct?
Is SlimVirgin right? Are all the meanings of terrorism blurred together? When people say "terrorism," do they mean nothing you can put your finger on? Are they just being "controversial?" Are they trying to convey something that cannot be tied down to any "relevance" or "accuracy?" In reverting the definition to this, is SlimVirgin giving an accurate portrayal of the historic usage of the word "terrorism?" Where did this come from? Is she trying to "rewrite history?"
I'm sure we could argue that SlimVirgin is trying to make a point and force other editors to try harder, but is that her job? Is she the overseer of editors? Shouldn't we demand the same from her as we do from ourselves, that if she thinks an article could be better, she propose a better solution? Reverting edits to an older, worse definition as an apparent form of punishment or motivation, is an abuse of power and, I think, should be grounds for demotion. What do you think? --Zephram Stark 02:14, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Jesus. This is ludicrous. Are you serious or just playing around? The version that you claim is better is not. It is worse. I agree there are vagueness problems with the other, but the precision you add to your version is phony and undocumented. It is "original research" (though it is generous to call it "research"). You haven't answered any of the arguments against your version and you refuse to list even a single example of usage that would confirm your version. Then you use sock puppets to revert without even responding to these points. This is outrageous behavior.--csloat 04:58, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

It is indeed ludicrous for you to show up after we have been working on this for months and dismiss it without any suggestion as to how to make it better. You are an editor, not a WikiGod. You have the same rights as any of us. If you think you have something to offer, please propose your better option. The users of Wikipedia and other editors can look at your suggestion and decide if we think it is actually better. As an editor, your job is to make positive proposals as to how to improve articles. Instead, your band of thugs gangs up on people, reverts their edits as punishment, deletes large sections of beneficial information as apparent motivation (giving you the benefit of the doubt), labeling everyone that you don't like "sockpuppets" (when a simple IP check can verify your claim isn't true), and failing to do anything but tear down other people's work.

We know the issues you've brought up, and we've discussed them in ways deeper than anything you have said. Our desire is to create a definition that most accurately represents the usage of the term. I think you know that the one you keep reverting us too in no way does that. On the other hand, the one that the active editors of this definition have agreed upon accurately reflects the various usages of the term by codifying them separately and distinctly, the way that they are used in everyday speech. These different usages of the term are necessarily referenced when people talk in order to make sure that the intended meaning is conveyed. We have used the most popular references to these types in the agreed version of the article. You claim to want to see these references in writing by a professor or something, yet you have proof right in front of you that FISA-terrorism and pejorative-terrorism are the most popular ways of referencing these distinct different usages of the term. It may be true that you can find only a few dozen examples of this use in Google and on these pages, but since there is no other way that anyone has ever referenced the distinct meanings of FISA-terrorism or pejorative-terrorism, they are still the most popular usage. The terms exist. They are used in diverse ways, and you have proof that they are referenced as FISA-terrorism and pejorative-terrorism. Are you now going to pretend that these distinct usages of the term do not exist, or that somehow they are all mixed together? Are you going to support a lie for the definition of terrorism just to satisfy you personal agenda on this? Are you going to let your loyalty to SlimVirgin and Jayjg get in the way of a good definition? Are you going to promote SlimVirgin's edit of "Definitions of 'terrorism' may involve some or all of the following" when you know that vague picking and choosing of the meaning is not an accurate portrayal of the term? Make a choice. Will Wikipedia be about loyalty to a small group of admins, or are you going to support the best article and try to make it even better?--Zephram Stark 14:12, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I do have suggestions for how to make it better. The main one is to eliminate your ridiculous terminology that you can't even show any proof of a single person ever using anywhere outside of wikipedia. You claim this terminology was agreed on after months of discussion but you can't show any demonstration of that and you can't find a single non-anonymous user to agree with you. Nobody is reverting you "as punishment"; we are doing so because your edits are destructive to the wikipedia. We don't want original research here and we especially don't want bad original research like this crap. Stop pretending other editors have agreed upon these stupid neologisms. Where is this proof you claim of these terms actually being used? As I said, I have never seen them used before and I have been researching this topic for years. Zeph you are wasting everyone's time. Does anyone know how to complain about this user and initiate action that will lead to banning his IP?--csloat 17:27, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

In answer to your question, Csloat, I think he's just playing around; for example, he keeps claiming that all sorts of editors have agreed on his version, but he can't name one who has actually done so. Similarly, he keeps claiming all sorts of usages of his neologisms, but can't cite any examples. Combine that with the turnspeak, revisionist history, and sockpuppet reverting, and I don't see any indication that any of this has been done in good faith. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:08, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Copy edit

I've started a copy edit. It looks extensive, but in fact mostly involves the moving of material and the deletion of some original research, though there's a lot of it left, which should really go too. Once we've gotten rid of the material we don't want, perhaps we can start re-building it using authoritative sources. Let me know whether it's okay so far, so I know whether to continue. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:52, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

The entire premise of your edited revert is absurd. "Terrorism" is not a grab-bag of definitions of which you can pick and choose. Terrorism actually means something when it is used. It conveys information. Your article does not convey information. It is as far from a factual representation as a definition can get. We have already been over this in the five pages of discussion over the term, representing hundreds of hours of work. Please edit the definition we fixed, the definition that accurately represents the various distinct ways that terrorism is used. I'll pull it back up one more time. Please remember that, whether or not we are admins, we are all bound by the same Wikipedia writers' rules of engagement. --Zephram Stark 14:32, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Please edit the definition we fixed, the definition that accurately represents the various distinct ways that terrorism is used. There is no "we", and your definition is pure 100% original research -- which you haven't made the tiniest attempt to refute.

And as for the Wikipedia writers' rules of engagement, may I draw your attention to the following points within it?:

• Work toward consensus
• Don't filibuster
• When taking issue with another editor, do not say "this is". Bear in mind there may be alternative explanations.
• Follow the three revert rule - never revert the same page more than three times on the same day.

Physician, heal thyself. --Calton | Talk 14:46, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Carlton, did you know that people use Wikipedia? There are users over and above the editors of the encyclopedia. These people are not sock-puppets. Even if they don't edit, they are real people with real IPs that can easily be verified with an IP search. People with IPs from all over the world have been fixing the hostile-reverts you keep making. They are trying to tell you something. They want a factual definition for "terrorism," not this crap that you and your gang of Wikilynchers keeps shoving down our throats. In reverting their edits four times in a twenty-four hour period, you have broken Wikipedia's 3RR rule. Please undo your damage immediately. --Zephram Stark 15:29, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

You're right, in that I accidentally broke the 3RR. Everything else in your statement, however, is transparent bullshit. --Calton | Talk 15:45, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Please stop the crap

Look, Zeph, we cannot make this page better or more precise if we are constantly distracted by your idiotic reversion to a version of the page that everyone else agrees is bogus. So please lay off, and concentrate on edits that actually improve the quality of the page rather than introducing vocabulary that nobody in their right mind has ever used. --csloat 17:39, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

LMAO, I'm not doing it. If you know anything about IPs, you can easily trace them and know that these are coming from users of Wikipedia all over the world. I traced a couple to Australia and New Zealand even. People think your definition is shit. Accept it. --Zephram Stark 18:21, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Seriously, compare the definition we worked on for the last several months, taking everybody's suggestions from all five pages of discussion into consideration, with your revert-edit. Any questions? --Zephram Stark 18:29, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Zeph you are on drugs. You keep referring to your idiosyncratic crap as "the definition we worked on for months". Who is "we"? You and your imaginary friends who run around talking about "FISA-terrorism"? "Gee, looks like there was a pejorative-terrorist attack in Jordan today." Get a grip. If your anon IP friends are really different people why don't they add to the discussion page or ever add a note to the edit summary when they revert? --csloat 19:29, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I can just picture the three of you sitting around, all red-faced, saying, "If we keep reverting the definition and keep saying that it is bad, maybe people will start believing us." Unfortunately for you, they seem to be comparing the two definitions instead. Regular users from all around the planet are choosing the definition that is consistent with usage over your grab-bag of evasive ambiguities. I think the message is clear. People want their definitions to mean something—-for their words to convey information. --Zephram Stark 18:29, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Who else besides you contributed anything to that definition? Who is "we"? Please name them. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:05, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Everybody who said anything in the five pages of discussion contributed to that definition. For instance, Smyth researched State Terrorism and contributed the part that it included terrorism of the population of another government. Please feel free to read through the discussions if you want to see the detail of how that definition was built. --Zephram Stark 18:29, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Zephram, I think it's rather absurd to say that your definiton is preferred by "Regular users from all around the planet...". These users are sockpuppets. I don't know whose sockpuppets they are, but it's quite certain that they're not legit users. You're not helping your case by touting their preferences. Carbonite | Talk 19:20, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

It's really easy, Carbonite. You just go to any IP search and type in the IP. It tells you where that user is, what service they use, and many other things about them. There actually are people who use Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, you know. There's a whole world out there beyond your little loyal admin fun bunch. --Zephram Stark 18:29, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Zeph - I can just picture you sitting in the middle of an empty computer lab with a sock over each hand and talking to your little sockpuppets saying "If I keep saying over and over that there are other people who use these ridiculous neologisms someone will believe me." This is such a waste of time. I don't understand why this isn't in the definitions of terrorism article anyway. The message is clear that the users who actually care enough about wikipedia to explain their edits all agree that your contributions add nothing to the discussion. Also, don't put up the bogus line that your edits conform to my suggestions -- what I said was, we can talk about terrorism as defined by FISA (or a myriad other laws for that matter) but I did not say just change the name (and then keep the name further down where you talk about the ludicrous notion of "FISA-terrorism" again). I'm sorry Zeph but this is all bullshit. You are editing in bad faith and your IP (and those of your sockpuppets) should be blocked. --csloat 19:31, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

ROFL @ sockpuppets. You crack me up. Are you suggesting that I say "terrorism as defined by FISA" every time I refer to it? Is that what you think the state department does? I don't know if you guys are trying to hide the definition of terrorism or just so paranoid over that N.Y. Post thing that you don't want to define anything any more, but I do know that your version of terrorism doesn't convey information, and that's what definitions are supposed to do. --Zephram Stark 18:29, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

What the State Department says can be very easily determined by reading some of their publications. It's pretty clear what the State Department does not say. I am happy to have us work on the introduction to more clearly define terrorism, but not by making up artificial lingo to satisfy your bizarre taxonomical fetish. (Should we also speak of "PATRIOT-terrorism" to describe the definition from the USA PATRIOT Act? How about "Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996-terrorism" or "AEDPA-terrorism" for short? Is someone who commits "pejorative terrorism" a "pejorative terrorist"?) I also wish you would actually read the definitions of terrorism page and suggest there additions such as FISA's definition rather than demanding that your silliness be featured at the top of this page. --csloat 19:53, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

As you can see by our discussions, we've been over that extensively. We are well aware of the issues, but thank you for bringing your great brain into the discussion at this late date and enlightening us. Perhaps your great brain can give us a solution too? All we ask is that the definition convey information. When we use the term, we want the person who hears the word to visualize the same thing we mean. I think the definition we created did that quite well, but we wait with eager trepidation the much better solution you will give us. After all, a brain as big as yours should be able to, in a few minutes, capture the usage of the term better than we could in months. --Zephram Stark 20:11, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Zeph, my big brain is still not big enough to actually find any evidence of "months of discussion" or of other parties who share your fantasies of overcompartmentalization. Can you please point me to the "months of discussion"? Can you point me to your no doubt insightful input to the definitions of terrorism page? Can you point me to all the experts and everyday wikipedians who have participated in the discussion and who were sources for the definition? --csloat 20:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

on to a real issue

Why is there no mention of the goal of terrorism as causing an overreaction on the part of the enemy who is attacked? That has been a key goal of modern terrorism since Nechaev, and was articulated most clearly by the New Left terrorists. It seems like an important point (far more important than whether we have a section on "pejorative-terrorism", for example...)--csloat 19:36, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

We talked about that extensively and included it in our definition under Political Terrorism. I guess you didn't even bother reading it before wiping it out? --Zephram Stark 19:46, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Who else besides you contributed anything to that definition? Who is "we"? Please name them. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:54, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Where did "we" talk about it extensively? I don't see "our definition" of political terrorism; what I see is yours, and overreaction is not discussed there (other than the claim that a goal of political terrorism is to prompt the opponent to reduce liberties -- a related claim yes but not quite the overreaction thesis). But my objection to your "political terrorism" category is that the political nature of terrorism is already fundamentally part of its definition. Mass murder without a political cause or goal may be terrifying but it is not "terrorism" (and please don't tell me it is "criminal terrorism"). And if you would leave the intro alone for a while some of the more serious editors might be able to start working on a more precise general definition rather than your innaccurate and idiosyncratic list of specific buzzwords that don't exist in any real source of information on this issue.--csloat 20:01, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

When I say "our," I'm talking about everyone who actively worked on the new introduction for months before posting it. You know what I'm talking about—-don't play stupid. Our definition (meaning the definition exhaustively working on for months by those who have already been over every issue you bring up with a fine-toothed comb and have yet to see anything from you that actually defines the word) says, "Political Terrorism adds a constraint that terrorism is used to further a political cause. Whereas Conventional Warfare seeks to reduce an opponent's physical ability to fight, Political Terrorism seeks to coerce compliance in an opponent, either directly through fear of losing life and luxury, or indirectly by prompting the opponent to reduce liberties and increase military/police spending." --Zephram Stark 21:14, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm talking about everyone who actively worked on the new introduction for months before posting it.' WHO? Name names? You know what we're talking about, so don't dodge the question by playing stupid. --Calton | Talk 20:53, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

One thing I've learned since the second-grade sand pile is that the guy asking the stupid question already knows the answer. He's just seeing if I'm a sucker enough to compile all of the names in the discussion list in front of him. --Zephram Stark 21:14, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Just name them. Who actually edited your version, besides you? Who agreed to it? Naming them should be simple enough. Even one name would be helpful. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:33, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

You can look throught the discussions just as easy as I can. --Zephram Stark 00:34, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I expect he did, which is why he's asking. As I did, and found nothing such as you refer to. The funny thing is you don't bother to defend your version; you just insist on making it the default version as a matter of policy. It betrays a complete lack of confidence in your own position. Which is not too surprising, since that position is bankrupt. If there really was "hundreds of hours" of discussion about this, why are you afraid to actually point to it? --csloat 00:54, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Image:LaughterTears.gif

     Do you want me to copy all five pages of terrorism discussion to this thread? What do you think we were discussing? Toenail polish colors? --Zephram Stark 08:41, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

No; I want you to link (not copy) whatever part of the discussion is actually relevant to your edits. I want to see one other person in the universe who actually thinks there are "pejorative terrorists" running around ... perhaps building pejorative WMDs, hijacking pejorative planes and crashing them into pejorative buildings. Stop pretending to be such an idiot; it is getting tedious.--csloat 08:50, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

     Nobody has suggested the term "pejorative terrorists" except you. --Zephram Stark 14:41, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Protected

I've protected the article until this disagreement is settled here in Talk. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I can see you guys want your non-definition of terrorism so badly that you are willing to use administrative powers to keep anyone else from editing it. As I'm sure you realize, Wikipedia has proven herself here and other places to be nothing more than a little clique of administrators. Nobody else has any real editing power unless it's in line with your view of reality. That's alright. Looking at the top-down control of Wikipedia, it's fairly obvious to see that its never going to be what it purports itself to be. --Zephram Stark 20:46, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Of course, you can prove me wrong by locking down the definition that was there before these trouble-makers came along—-the definition that users of Wikipedia have 'voted' unanimously for (as per 3RR comments)—-the definition that we agreed to edit in talk before posting—-that we discussed exhaustively—-that was created between everyone interested without any of this drama—-one that I personally would be happy to help edit with others (since I don't have a desire to start over again with the revert after hundreds of hours of work)—-and the only definition proposed that actually conveys information: Terrorism Objectively Defined --Zephram Stark 21:39, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Ah - we now have a unanimous vote as further evidence! Wonderful, Zephram, this is good news. Please provide a simple link to the vote results so we all can review and learn that we did, indeed, vote for your version after "hundreds of hours of work". I'm sure a simple reminder will wake us all up, since the vote was unanimous. Please, we wait with bated breath for the proof of consensus and collective editorship that you claim exists. I'm sure it's just a collective hallucination that made us temporarily forget about voting for these edits. Ignorance is strength! --csloat 22:07, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Zeph, I genuinely don't know who the other editors are who worked for months on your consensus version, as I've only edited this page sporadically, so please do name them. It's good to have the spontaneous support of anonymous IP addresses from all over the planet who just happen to arrive at this article on the same day to revert to the same version, but there's nothing to beat a good old-fashioned user account with thousands of edits to his or her name. Are you supported by any of those? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:22, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Are you kidding? What Wikipedia editor would want to go through the hell you've put me through? There were a few people who commented at first, but when they could see that it was shaping up to be a Wikilynching, they steered well clear. After that, nobody dared to say anything except through anonymous IPs. I don't blame them. I learned my lesson. If you ever go up against Jaygj, he'll get all his admin buddies to rip you to shreds, revert your edits, call anyone who tries to express their opinion against him a sockpuppet and block their IP, and lock the article you've slaved over to the worst possible definition. I get the message. The funny thing is that there are still people who believe in the concept of Wikipedia: that we all have an equal voice. --Zephram Stark 21:39, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Everyone who follows our policies has an equal voice. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:42, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Yea, that's what I'm saying. In your mind, it belongs to you. You have the right to force the non-administrators to follow it. It doesn't belong to them. It's your policies and if they don't follow your interpretation of the policies, you will punish them. It doesn't matter if you have to revert a good article to one that everyone knows is pure shit, as long as you get your point across, that your will be done. --Zephram Stark 01:14, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I took a look at the version that Zephram Stark has endorsed. Prominently positioned is something called "pejorative terrorism". It's not easy finding a two word phrase that generates zero Google hits, but that's one. Who came up with that term, and why are we arguing to include it in our article? It appears to me to be some form of original research. Thanks, -Willmcw 05:20, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

(stuff here moved below)

Image:LaughterTears.gif

Terrorism necessarily influences a third party? LMAO—At this rate you guys will probably get a good working definition in about six months. You'll present the final proposal here in talk and, when nobody disagrees, finally post it to the article, confident that you finally have a definition that conveys information and accurately represents its usage. As soon as you do, it will be gone forever. Nobody will bother even using it as a starting point. It will simply be continuously reverted until you give up on it. I won't have anything to do with it, but I'll be laughing at the irony. --Zephram Stark 20:46, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I've been away for the last few days, but I'm glad it's now obvious that this isn't just a dispute between Zephram and me. Zephram, occasionally every editor, including me, suggests something and doesn't get enough support for it. They don't normally keep on pushing for it for two months or more, when at least ten people have spoken against them, and not a single person has agreed. Please just drop this, or everyone will think (if they don't already), that you're either malicious or stupid. – Smyth\^talk 18:37, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Smyth, you're a fine human being, and your argument makes complete sense: it's just stupid and malicious to expect a definition to convey information. --Zephram Stark 12:11, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, Zephram, but I believe the nominations for Biggest Non Sequitor of The Quarter have already passed.

In any case, I think it's a minimum condition that a definition convey ACTUAL information. I realize you find it a big handicap, but with some effort you can overcome it. --Calton | Talk 12:54, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Off-topic

Since you've made it clear to all that you are not here to help, can you please just STFU? --csloat 08:52, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

     Help undefine the word? I'm here to build Wikipedia, not tear it down. I have never once deleted whole sections of a term as punishment, reverted a definition out of malice, or changed an article in any way except to make it better. In my book, making an article better is the only moral function of our editing powers, ESPECIALLY if you are trusted with additional admin powers.

     What you've done is so immoral that its depravity is apparently self-evident to people with IPs around the globe. You've put yourself above everyone else, as if Wikipedia has a hierarchy of power. You evidently don't think you have to obey the writer's rules of engagement, only enforce the rules in other people. In doing so, you have destroyed the very purpose of an encyclopedic definition: to convey information.

     Imagine that you hit the Random article link and it led you to "Boobaloo," which was defined as "controversial, with no agreed upon definition, varies widely in usage, and generally involving some or all of the following: it may or may not be unlawful, violent, life threatening, politically motivated, targeting civilians, directly targeting not the main targets, main targets may or may not be more nation-states, governments, ethnic, or religious group, industry, commercial operation, may or may not intimidate, may or may not be a claim of responsibility, or clandestine, often used normatively as immoral, wanton, unjustified, or defined by expert A.P. Schmid."

     Now use "Boobaloo," in a sentence. You can't? What a shock!! I guess you'll have to go to a more authoritative source of definitions to know what it means. But wait!! You still can't use it in a sentence because the person you're talking to might use Wikipedia, not realizing that Wikipedia admins are so concerned with covering their asses and being 'loyal' to their buddies that they won't let the term convey anything. The person you're talking to might actually think that "Boobaloo" means nothing but an evasive grab-bag of ambiguities.

     Realizing that efficient use of language is essential for the progress of civilization, your job would be, of course, to tell as many people as you can that words have objective meanings, that these meanings have been concisely delineated in dictionaries and encyclopedias for hundreds of years, and that if Wikipedia is subverting definitive meanings for terms in order to promote power plays within the administration, it simply can not be taken seriously. --Zephram Stark 14:28, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

...tell as many people as you can that words have objective meanings... Since the terms you've made up, in fact, do NOT have objective meaning (because, after all, you made them up), this is pretty funny. Maybe not funny-haha, but funny-sheesh.

Give up the act, Charlie, NO ONE here is buying it. Put up or shut up: produce some actual sources, point to these supposed supporters/fellow editors, stop dodging every single question put to you, give up the transparent sockpuppetry and vigorous handwaving, and at least try to actually contribute to the transmission of actual knowledge instead of Making Shit Up. Otherwise, just go away and annoy people on Usenet instead. --Calton | Talk 14:53, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think people like being called sockpuppets, Calton. Jayjg, alone, has accused nine people, with IPs all over the planet, of being sockpuppets when they try to undo the damage he has caused here. To add insult to injury, Jayjg then blocks them (see Special:Ipblocklist) so they can't defend themselves. Why don't you let them speak for themselves? Why don't you accuse them to their face of being sockpuppets, let them defend themselves, and see what happens? You can talk all tough and make any allegation you want when you have the power to gag the other person. If you shut up enough people, maybe you'll succeed in garnering all the Wikipedia power for those 'loyal' to the inner circle of admins, but you won't have any users left. 800 million hits a day, and how many of those are people using Wikipedia as a definitional source? Nobody can know for sure, but certainly nine more users have lost faith in Wikipedia just over what Jayjg did by blocking them in regard to this article. What was their crime? Why have you and your crownies lied so many times about their roll in Wikipedia, when the truth is evident to anyone who cares to use an IP search? Why are they not allowed to defend themselves? Apparently, it's because they dared to take a stand against what you're doing here. Apparently it's because they value the purpose of Wikipedia—the building of definitive articles—over the little power games you and your buddies play. But don't take my word for it. Let them speak for themselves by unblocking their IPs. --Zephram Stark 15:44, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

• The purpose of this page is discussion of the article Terrorism. Please focus on achieving consensus rather than on making personal attacks. If you have a broader issue with other editors, please take it to User talk pages. Thank you. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:54, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to get as much help as possible in editing this article, but it's kind of hard for others to help edit when they're blocked. Would you mind unblocking the IPs associated with this article? All each of them did was help fix a hostile-revert. Now their IPs are blocks so they can't even use their log-in accounts. --Zephram Stark 16:08, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

(a)I have no idea which IPs you are referring to; there are many blocked IPs. (b) That formatting you're using is real annoying; it makes the page considerably harder to read, and disrupts the flow of discussion. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:17, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Do you like this better? --Zephram Stark 16:32, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

     I'd be happy to make a list of just those IPs and alleged offenses associated with this article if you will unblock those whom you think didn't do anything wrong. --Zephram Stark 16:38, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Zeph, you're definitely trolling now. Give it a rest or I'm going to start reverting any edits you make to this page that aren't about the article. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:44, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

I believe it. That would be par for course. Have you ever considered doing something constructive instead? --Zephram Stark 16:56, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Tell you what, I'll take my lead from you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:07, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

The ball's in your court. --Zephram Stark 17:11, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

..with the possible exception that sources have not been provided to your satisfaction. False on several counts, including the most important, namely that you have provided no sources, period, full-stop. Also, "we"? Are you royalty, a newspaper editor, or suffer from tapeworm? --Calton | Talk 07:39, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Towards a new introduction

Zeph would like the rest of us to ignore the fact that there was some constructive editing going on here with the intro already. So I took the liberty of moving the following discussion from above (sans Zeph's ridicule). It seems this would be a better place to start then with fictitious neologisms.

(below copied from above)

---

Begin Noitall proposed edit (mostly for English purposes): Since I can't edit on the page, I'll edit here. Some parts of the definition are redundant or confusing or too academic for an encyclopedia, which is intended for a general audience. Let me try this:

• A terrorist act is generally unlawful.
• It is violent and may be life threatening.
• The violence has a political objective.
• The direct targets are civilians.
• The attack furthers the terrorist's political objective, which may be one or more nation-states, governments, or societies; or a political, ethnic, or religious group, or an industry or commercial operation, within those societies.
• The objective is usually to intimidate society or to foment anarchy and civil war.
• The terrorist may seek to remain anonymous and thus may not claim responsibility.
• The perpetrator is usually a non-state entity. Where there is direct state involvement, the state actors are clandestine or semi-clandestine. See State terrorism.

--Noitall 06:07, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

First, I think the definition on this page should be simple with a link to definitions of terrorism (and that page should be improved). I think there are some problems with the above -- for example, terrorist targets are not always civilians; terrorists in the 1920s-50s generally targeted the police forces. Many terrorists target symbolic political leaders for assassination. Perhaps "often directly targets civilians" might be better (though of course less precise). Or perhaps "involves innocent victims" -- since even when police or military officials are targeted, they are usually innocent of direct harm to the terrorists. Terrorism involves the use of violence or the threat of violence to create fear. Generally the victim of the terrorist act is not the audience of the violence; the attack on the victim is meant to make an impression on another audience who is then expected to be coerced or tricked into taking certain action (usually, into responding with force so overwhelming that its authority is delegitimized). Thus the point is the victims are "innocent" insofar as what matters to the terrorist is not killing this or that victim but in creating fear and making a point to a third party. It is in this light that many scholars speak of "demonstrative terrorism" -- though I don't suggest we embrace that terminology at all. I also don't want to insist on non-state entity since we do speak of both "state terrorism" and "state-sponsored terrorism", which are two different things. Also I don't think the goal is ever "to foment anarchy and civil war" per se -- perhaps there are cases (e.g. Iraq) where such chaos seen as a means to an end, but I can't think of any case properly called "terrorism" where the end is simply to cause chaos. Even for the anarchists of the 19th century throwing bombs were seen as a means of achieving justice, not of causing chaos.

Anyway, I don't want to reinvent the wheel here -- there are thousands of definitions of terrorism and the other page should list some important ones. For here why not just quote one of them and list the major characteristics -- terror, political motivation, use of violence to influence a third party? --csloat 07:41, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

On your comments:

1. civilians - everyone non-military is a civilian, including police forces and political leaders
2. most of the terrorism targeting civilian political leaders is to foment anarchy and civil war from which the terrorists can achieve their political goal (bombs does not equal justice, it was for anarchy)
3. State terrorism - I had not even seen that article before, it is entirely inconsistent throughout and is original research with the only person making any statement is wierdo extemist Norm Chomsky, and I would change it to read:

• The perpetrator is usually a non-state entity. Sometimes states sponsor terrorism through clandestine involvement.

--Noitall 08:10, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

With all due respect, you may not agree with Chomsky, but he is hardly a "weirdo extremist." And the notion of "state terrorism" is not just his; there is a whole school of thought that takes this approach, and the phrase is commonly used. I agree we want to keep these concepts distinct, of course, but we cannot just ignore or ridicule that concept. As for "civilians," we should probably say "noncombatant." I think you're right about the use of the term in general, however it has been used in other ways (e.g., non-police or non-official), and it just might be clearer. Even to say "civilian, or noncombatant, targets." I don't understand your point about fomenting anarchy, it sounds the same as mine. Chaos is not an end but a means to an end. In some cases it is just a byproduct.--csloat 11:28, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Considerations when Creating a Definitive Introduction to Terrorism

Arguments for use (taken from Wikipedia Words to Avoid)

• It's a legitimate word with well-defined meaning. Dictionaries, encyclopaedias, textbooks on political science, etc. will readily provide definitions. So will most governments, who tend to see it as something like "doing bodily harm for political reasons without actually being a government." When governments accuse each other of "state terror" you are over the line into political science and no definition will help you.
• The fact that most groups called "terrorist" deny such accusations is not relevant to the fact that they are indeed terrorist (if they are, under a given definition). A comparison with the word "pseudo-science", which has been used in Wikipedia, might be illuminative.
• Unlike traditional media, Wikipedia can fully explore the semantic nuances of words. In fact, terrorism is a good example; it's cross-linked to asymmetric warfare and doublespeak and guerrilla and assassin, etc. Instead of censoring ourselves, which would lead to a neurotic project (since it would have a rule which is in direct conflict with its mission), we can provide more information, better information, etc. Instead of simply calling someone a terrorist, we can say why we're doing that--say exactly who is calling whom a terrorist, etc.
• The term does not reflect a bias towards any political orientation, as it refers to the methods and not to the opinions and beliefs shared by the terrorist group. For example, both left-wing groups trying to conduct revolution and right-wing racist groups trying to stop immigration may be termed terrorist.
• The fact that the term is often misused does not mean that it should not be used at all.

(copied from Wikipedia Words to Avoid) --Zephram Stark 16:56, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with all the above, except I'd add the proviso that any analysis has to use authoritative published sources. This is a helpful edit. Thank you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:11, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Matching an Introduction to the Above Criteria

Can we agree that the definition currently locked to the introduction of the article in no way meets any of these criteria, and that this definition meets all of them with the possible exception of yours? --Zephram Stark 00:24, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

No, I don't agree. As I said above, that version constitutes original research. Find authoritative sources who made those points and used those terms, and it'll be fine, but otherwise not. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:48, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Zephram Stark's version contains the neologisms "Pejorative-terrorism" and "FISA-terrorism". The current version is a bit odd, but it adheres to the standard definitions and does not look like original research. -Willmcw 01:20, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

If needs be, we can look at each part of the locked definition against the above criteria, but I think it's pretty evident that when people say "terrorism," they have a well-defined meaning in mind, not a grab bag of miss-matched possibilities. So that we can move forward, can we skip the drama and at least agree that the definition currently locked in no way meets any of the above criteria, including SlimVirgin's proviso that analysis must use authoritative published sources? --Zephram Stark 01:31, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

"We" don't agree. The only person who disagrees is you. – Smyth\^talk 06:49, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Can we agree to actually suggest improvements or lay out alternative definitions rather than comparing definitions to imaginary criteria and trying to agree on which one is worse? Zeph is just trying to hijack the agenda here so he can come back to whining that "FISA-terrorism" is the product of months of heated discussion. I suggest we ignore him and move on. If he wants to make reasonable suggestions that is fine but I don't see the need to humor his insistence on taking over this discussion.--csloat 02:00, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

We are all proceeding from an assumption that we are trying to make the article better, Commodore. Please try to help the process, not hinder it. --Zephram Stark 02:10, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

My point is that we already have an article that matches most of the above criteria (which was created by some of the most respected people at Wikipedia). In fact, I think it matches all of the items above with the possible exception that sources have not been provided to your satisfaction. I propose that we start with the definition we have already been working on for the past several months, and let the old definition that matches none of the above criteria go. --Zephram Stark 02:41, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

You are utterly detached from reality, and I doubt that anyone will ever engage with you again. – Smyth\^talk 06:49, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Instead of overpowering other editors with Administration powers of blocking contributors and locking pages, why don't we let the two articles speak for themselves? I welcome you to compare the definition below with the one Noitall proposes in the Towards a new introduction section. Please help improve the definition you think is closest to the actual usage of "terrorism" and most cocisely convey's its information. Please help improve the definition, not destroy it. Removing large sections of either definition will, of course, be reverted. --Zephram Stark 02:41, 25 August 2005 (UTC) (Please note that the article referenced in the above statement no longer exists because Commodore Sloat deleted it. When I tried to put the article back, Jaygj removed it again. Since my purpose at Wikipedia is to make articles better, I'm not going to contribute to this discussion-edit-war. I think a comparison of the articles speaks for itself, but I guess that can't happen if Wikipedia administrators are going to delete proposals in discussion, block those who support the deleted articles, and consider loyalty to their fellow admins as being more important than definitions that actually convey information. If you wish to compare versions, please do so in the article's edit history. --Zephram Stark 19:14, 26 August 2005 (UTC))

Actually for some inexplicable reason you deleted Noitall's comment,[8] so I reverted you. Feel free to add your own comments, but not at the expense of deleting those by other editors. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:30, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

What excuse are you going to give for blocking me?--EKBK 22:10, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Complete non-starter. Doesn't address a single one of the issues everyone else -- and I do mean everyone else -- has with your original research.

The screenwriter William Goldman had a term for the waste of time rewriting and altering dead-on-arrival material: he called it "washing garbage".

So let's be real here: no one here is going to wash your garbage. --Calton | Talk 13:55, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

You may be right about two things: (1) Nobody needs to wash it because (2) it's dead on. --Zephram Stark 16:21, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Zephram Stark, it takes real perseverence to accomplish what you have done: on a very controversial page, your edits have found absolute common ground among the editors: we all disagree with original research and new, even more confusing, terms. --Noitall 21:02, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Maybe if we just put a disclaimer on the bottom that says "Please note that compound words used in this description refer to the various parts of the term and are not necessarily used in everyday speech."--EKBK 22:10, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I have a better idea; why not stick with the current consensus introduction, which isn't filled with neologisms and other original research of your, err, I mean, Zephram Stark's introduction. That way we won't need any disclaimers. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:14, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

This is what, the tenth person you've accused of being me? The funny thing is that we know every one of these people's IP numbers. As I'm sure you are aware, because I've explained it three times, an IP search will tell you that the locations of these IP numbers are in countries all over the world. Given that you still keep accusing people of being me, I am curious as to how you envision this happening. Do I fly to various nations to use their library and coffee-shop computers? Do I have a Mach 5 aircraft capable of getting from Canada to Australia to England to the United States to New Zealand all within hours of each other? Or perhaps I set this all up in advance? Do I have safe-houses that I rent all over the world, each with their own hardware configuration that answers long-distance calls from me and reroutes the data to a local provider? Do I have help from the Flying Spaghetti Monster in doing all this? Or is it the CIA?!! Is Interpol using all of its agents around the world to define terrorism so we can have a war on it? Do you see yourself as the last vestige of hope in keeping this definition undefined? Are my attempts to attach a definition to terrorism part of a large conspiracy?

What drives you and your little gang to destroy things, to use your admin power to block people with opposing viewpoints, to make ridiculous and unsubstantiated attacks on editors who are only trying to make things better? Why do you delete entire paragraphs that make definitions unusable or revert articles to versions that you know are worse? Looking through your contributions, it appears to me that you can't seem to make anything better, that you simply destroy. Have you convinced yourself that this is somehow a useful function here at Wikipedia? Do you see yourself as the destroyer of all that is bad, hoping that this will leave only good stuff? -Hoping that others will rebuild what you have destroyed to more closely follow your belief system?

I've followed some of the articles you've destroyed. Your shooting holes in them and reverting them as punishment didn't make any of them better. It made them worse. The feeling was of fear and trying to second-guess what would meet your approval process in order to avoid being punished by having your gang of thugs rip their definition to shreds without contributing anything better. Truth and good definitions are subverted in favor of appeasing you. Does this make you feel powerful? Has your sense of self been bolstered by Wikipedia? Every time you kill the work that someone spent days creating, do you picture them to be one of the bullies from High School? Have you finally found a substitute for popularity in your group subjugation of Wikipedia editors? Does this seem like a purpose? Does it give you a reason for living? Have you fooled yourself into thinking that destroying things is really a method of creation?

Just so you don't wind up on your death-bed realizing that your life didn't mean anything to anyone in a way that could be construed as positive, can I suggest an alternative? Each time you change a definition, could you ask yourself the question, "Did my edit make the definition better?" If you can't honestly say that you would like the definition to stand as it is after you edited it, then you are relying on someone else to fix the things you destroy. You are putting yourself in the position of an overseer, a punisher, a subverter of everything you think is unacceptable with no regard to what other people think. In doing so, you are destroying the concept of Wikipedia, that the editing power of many people is greater than the editing power of one. If you are successful, you will not have converted everyone to your beliefs; you will only have made Wikipedia impotent and unusable as an NPOV source of definitions.

You may never agree to the proposal I'm about to make, Jayjg, but I think there are plenty of other people here who care about good articles over Wikipolitics. I propose that from this day forward: we leave things better than we found them; we only change definitions when we can improve them; and we let everyone have a voice in deciding if it is better. Who can support this proposal? --Zephram Stark 17:34, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Zephram, all it takes to do that is to either use a bunch of anonymous proxies, or get in touch with some buddies on a mail list. As for the rest, please stop continaully using your comments to focus on me, rather than article content; aside from being abuses of the Talk: page, and personal attacks, I'm just one of more than a half dozen regular Wikipedia editors who have opposed your edits. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:27, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, proxy servers all over the planet or a giant conspiracy, but you forgot the Flying Spaghetti Monster!! --Zephram Stark 12:50, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, anonymous proxies are indeed found all over the planet; all admins who regularly block them know this. And e-mailing a bunch of buddies on a mailing list requires no giant conspiracy, but rather a very small piece of easily implemented collusion. As for your suggestion, you need to take it yourself, since your changes have only made things worse, and you seem to be trying to suppress the voices of at least 8 regular editors in favour of your own one-note voice. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:36, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Your argument is really starting to fall apart, Jayjg. Anonymous proxies are easily identified as such. Not a single person you blocked was using an anonymous proxy service, and I think you know it. As for your accusation that I got my friends to gang up on you, isn't that like the pot calling the kettle black? --Zephram Stark 16:02, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Anonymous proxies are all easily identified? How? And regarding your tacit admission that your got your friends to start reverting the article, I don't even know some of the editors here who have reverted and/or disagreed with you, but I do know that they are all regular Wikipedia editors, with thousands of edits on hundreds of articles. In this they differ markedly from you, essentially a one-article editor with under 500 edits, and even more markedly from your buddies, who are either all IPs whose only edit is a revert on this article, or User:EKBK, who is essentially identical to you except for even fewer edits (under 10, in fact). Unless you can muster some real support for your original research from real Wikipedia editors, I'm afraid there is no point in continuing discussion with you. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:03, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Zeph, the only reason I'm not deleting your personal attack is that Jayjg's already responded. Please stick to discussing the article. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:42, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you feel that way. I was trying to illustrate a problem that has driven many good editors from Wikipedia. I also proposed a solution that would enable us to fix the problems with the terrorism article. I would like to know if this is a solution that you or any of your gang of admins can support. If not, I think that says a lot about your true intentions in editing articles at Wikipedia. I propose that from this day forward: we leave things better than we found them; we only change definitions when we can improve them; and we let everyone have a voice in deciding if it is better. Is this a proposal that you support? --Zephram Stark 22:18, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree entirely. We only change definitions when we can improve them – this page clearly shows that nobody thinks you can. We let everyone have a voice – this page clearly shows that your voice has been totally outnumbered. – Smyth\^talk 17:04, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

These insinuations aren't helpful. The addition clearly fails to live up to professional encyclopedic standards due to its reliance on original constructs and syntheses. Please review closely and adhere to the WP:V and WP:RS. El_C 13:44, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

On the contrary, this discussion goes to the heart and concept of Wikipedia. An objective definition for "terrorism," available in all other dictionaries and encyclopedias, has never been forthcoming here at this resource because some people think they are more important than others. Some people think they are the definition police—-that they are contributing by destroying what others have built—-that anything not in line with their reality must be gutted by whatever means possible. It's getting pretty sick.

Loyalist admins gang up to revert and punch holes in everything that any one of them claims to dislike, or gang up on an individual who dares to oppose them, vandalizing his or her contributions under the guise of enforcing encyclopedic standards.

There is one way to eliminate this, and that solution just so happens to be perfectly in line with the founding concept of Wikipedia. All editors are equal. Nobody has an inherent right to police anyone else. If you can make an article better, do so. If not, leave it alone. Institutions, such as this, derive their just power from the consent of the governed, not from a pack of self-appointed reality police with a confessed ulterior agenda. --Zephram Stark 16:02, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I would have to agree wholeheartedly. I came in here a few days ago and reverted what I thought was a better definition back in and was promptly blocked and labeled a "sockpuppet." Then I was questioned in email as to whether I knew "Zephram Stark" and why I reverted the article. Who cares? My opinion simply differed from others and I liked his definition better. This place won't be taken seriously if that's what happens when someone tries to take part in a constructive way. --EKBK 16:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, like a half dozen IP editors, you suddenly showed up at a contested article and starting reverting it, something new editors simply do not know how to do. I'm shocked, simply shocked, that anyone might consider you to be a sockpuppet. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:12, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Can somebody post the IP addresses in question here? Are they really from "all over the world" like Mr. Stark claims? Where is EKBK posting from? I don't know enough about how to look this stuff up but I am curious. It is indeed strange when an anon editor comes to wikipedia and ONLY edits a single article right in the middle of a revert war and either reverts without explanation or gives a minimally explained "me too" on the talk page.

It appears that user EKBK's very first edit was to jump on this talk page and claim that he uses the term "FISA-terrorism" all the time. Sorry, Zephram, but that is more than a little difficult to believe. His only edit besides this page is to say he enjoyed the german shepherd page.--csloat 00:01, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Block Log for August 21 - August 24, 2005 --Zephram Stark 01:08, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to tell us anything. Certainly not the IPs for Zephram Stark, EKBK, and I'm not sure which anon IPs listed are associated with this page. Apparently it's not so easy to tell that all of your supporters are "all over the world." --csloat 02:26, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't have to prove who I am, and if you're too lazy to run IP searches or don't like the fact that some people agree with Zephram Stark on a definition, and seek only to slam his edits, then you're certainly wasting time and don't dignify a response. This method of administrative ganging up is laughable. --EKBK 14:49, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Easy and time intensive are two different things. --Zephram Stark 18:54, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Never mind then. I think we have all the proof we need from the above.--csloat 19:00, 31 August 2005 (UTC)