Talk:Terrist

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 15 June 2006. The result of the discussion was delete, then redirect to Terrorism.

Stupid. Delete it.

actual terrists are welcome to admit they exist here, anonymously, just so this entry doesn't get deleted as fiction. If no one does so by oh say end of April, I guess we should deny you exist as well... ?

From the article: ]] Terrists is another name for Soylent Greens which they employ in culture jamming. It is a deliberate reference to the mispronunciation of terrorist by American authorities, and to their defense of Terra, i.e. the Earth, against such people, who they view as being alien invaders. It also mocks the labelling of such groups as the Earth Liberation Front and Anarchist Golfing Association as "terrorist" by the same authorities.

Terrist is also an alternative name for Terrans - as defined by Dr. Hugo De Garis in opposition to what he calls Cosmists - taking opposing and irreconcilable positions on whether humans should attempt to develop artificial intelligence. This debate is so far confined to specialized professional circles and has generally not been addressed in public policy.

Other than taking a strong active position for biosecurity and being willing to break laws to advance their aims, there seems to be no program common to all terrists - and no single authority on their objectives.

Controversial usage of the term to describe Greenpeace or Sea Shepherd activists, Gaians, or others in the Green Movement, is generally not welcomed by those groups, who differentiate very carefully and deliberately between themselves and groups deliberately destroying property.

Lots of evidence needed for this material. Otherwise, this page appears to be a mishmash.

Objection noted. Keeping it in talk is legit until more emerges on this - although it's pretty easy to find use of the term "terrist" on google... which includes *BOTH* misspellings by Americans (showing how widespread that confusion is) and parodies...

so the Gaian/ecologist use of it is pretty subtle, indeed almost invisible... they are sneaking it into the parodies here and there.

Not sure I *want* to expose them... ;-)

So, let's leave this in talk for now. It may stay here.

It's interesting to contrast this with "Gaian", which has tons of references.

I agree with the definition of a terrist and am proud to be one.

Unfortunately, the word is only useable in text communications, identifying myself as one vocaly attracts sidelong glances from even the most "progressive" lefties.

Given the new definitions of terrorist (in Canaduh, any non-state actor seeking to influence the government) we are all suspect. I think dividing terrorist - lobbyists, suicide bombers, lone gunmen, techno geeks, and those who believe it's thier right to have what they want to support thier economy (all of these groups seek to influence the government) and terrists (white blood cells for the earth - seeking to influence government and citizens) makes it easier for people to identify with which group they fit into (since we're all defined as terrorists by the Government now) - the self interested, or ethicaly motivated one.

Terrist is a misspelling of "terrorist" that appears to have widely proliferated in the wake of the September 11th, 2001 attack on the U.S.A.

As if to prove the point, an anonymous user of wikipedia redirected this very file to the entry on "terrorist", proving the widespread confusion.

Some believe it is partly propagated by Soylent Greens, who sometimes deliberately refer to themselves as being terrists, as a form of culture jamming, and as a deliberate reference to the mispronunciation of terrorist by American authorities, and to their defense of Terra, i.e. the Earth, against such people, who they view as being alien invaders.

It also mocks the labelling of such groups as the Earth Liberation Front and Anarchist Golfing Association as "terrorist" by the same authorities.

As if to prove that point, one of them said hello in the Talk file, and wrote a sort of manifesto. Such groups are secretive and it's hard to validate their existence. However, there is a specialized use of the term which can cause conflict and confusion if this word is mistakenly used:

Terrist is also an alternative name for a radical Terran - as defined by Dr. Hugo De Garis in opposition to what he calls Cosmist - taking opposing and irreconcilable positions on whether humans should attempt to develop artificial intelligence.

Other than a vague obsession with some kind of biosecurity and biodiversity, and being willing to break laws to advance their aims, there seems to be no program common to all terrists - and no single authority on their objectives.

Controversial usage of the term to describe Greenpeace or Sea Shepherd activists, Gaians, or others in the Green Movement, is generally not welcomed by those groups, who differentiate very carefully and deliberately between themselves and groups deliberately destroying property. They fear, with some justification, that even joking references to terrist activities will be mistaken to mean terrorist activity.

Hopelessly infected with POV. --Daniel C. Boyer 16:38, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The term is discussed at the following four links: (1) http://www.mycatcenter.com/conservation.htm (2) http://greennature.com/article860.html (3) http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/E/Earth-First.htm (4) http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/e/environmentalism.htm --Lowellian 21:35, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)

All Wikipedia mirrors. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 10:40, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Archived delete debate follows. Conclusion was that Wikipedia was being gamed by a now banned user. Deleted. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 10:40, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Terrist

  • Essentially POV. Straw man. Article by its own admission says that there is no stated ideology "terrist" but fails to really make other claim for significance. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:18, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. +sj+ 23:31, 2004 Mar 10 (UTC)
  • Delete. Invented term. RickK 02:51, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. What links here and a Google search shows that it's not a term invented here but is in real use. Needs to include examples of terrists and their acts, though. Our description of the point of view held by terrists seems to be NPOV. Jamesday 05:40, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • A Google search turns up WP mirrors and misspellings of "terrorist". The what-links-here shows a number of articles in WP, which on closer examination all had the link to terrist pasted in by an anonymous 142.177.xxx.xxx (the original author of terrist), except for one change (ELF) which was due to User:Maximus Rex. Delete: term not in general circulation. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:56, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • I just pasted in the vfd header -- article didn't have one before. Oops! Wile E. Heresiarch 06:59, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Based on Wile E Heresiarch's research, I vote delete. Isomorphic 05:07, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Though it is often a misspelling of "terrorist", the term "terrist" actually exists independently and is not made up for Wikipedia. See the following four links: (1) http://www.mycatcenter.com/conservation.htm (2) http://greennature.com/article860.html (3) http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/E/Earth-First.htm (4) http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/e/environmentalism.htm --Lowellian 21:33, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)
    • Links (1) and (2) are WP mirrors. Link (4) is down at the moment, altho with "wiki" in the link I'm inclined to assume it's a mirror too. Link (3) contains one use of "terrist" in an anonymous comment, and, strangely enough, the comment links right back to Terrist. We still don't have evidence of "terrist" in circulation outside WP. Wile E. Heresiarch 22:32, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • This article smells to me like a contribution of banned user EoT, aka User:142.177.etc. If so, it is subject to speedy deletion, if any sysop wants to step up. Oh, and delete. -- Cyan 22:57, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • This term does not mean the same thing as terrorist, and even if the specifics of said movement are not well-defined, it should at least not be a redirect. I suggest either it be deleted (with someone hunting down and removing links to it), or that a new article be written. I'd be happy to do the research involved, if the second is ok. Improv
  • Delete. Regardless of the merits of the concept, or the word, this article is a word definition. It belongs in wiktionary, if anywhere. The term, if useful, can be defined in passing in some existing relevant article (greens, earth first, etc), and its appropriateness discussed in context.Will McW 09:01, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I hope that's a neutral POV that I just posted. I based it on what I read here in the talk and some web searches. I might violate Wiki guidelines for not being a dictionary but leaving it up might be better than having a not so neutral POV. Gbleem 05:45, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I observe that 19 articles still reference this one. Should be fixed - I presume they mostly don't mean terrorist. Seeing this in my contrib list will serve as a reminder to myself, if no one else does it. Tualha 22:43, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Deep ecology was one of the pages linking to Terrist. I've removed that link, but perhaps it could be reinstated if in the future a real Terrist page is provided instead of the redirect to Terrorism. JimR 01:08, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)