Open main menu
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Terrorism:

I think we should add 'new terrorism' under the broad heading of terrorism. It is widely accepted within scholarly and policy circles we are in the midst of confronting something fundamentally different to the terrorisms of old.

Add link to Terrorism and internet article Blade8603 (talk) 13:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The linking of civil disorder and terrorism is tenuous at the least.

Contents

Religious terrorism sectionEdit

I'm confused by this sections brief treatment of Islamic terrorism, which makes up 70% of all terrorist attacks after 9/11. Additionally, there's a tremendous amount of focus on so-called domestic terrorism in the United States, all of which is based solely on a questionable report from SPLC. If nothing else, it fails to adhere to a global view on the subject. This section needs attention. --2601:18C:8800:CF51:B473:1117:5EC7:2B72 (talk) 22:06, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

-There is an entire page on Islamic Terrorism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_terrorism

Also, the page is about the general concept of terrorism showing the main different classifications of terrorism. "Islamic terrorism" is too specific

It's like having a Wikipedia page about the elements and having an entire section just about Oxygen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C6:4780:13F9:8D9F:7DAF:DBBD:45C3 (talk) 04:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Motivations section badly organisedEdit

Motivations needs a general run in to contextualise all the following information, particularly that there is - as of yet - not consistent or agreed 'core motivation' for terrorism. However, numerous studies have identifies certain behavioural and situational characteristics that are common, and perhaps causal, to the consequence of terrorism.

In the least I am going to try and balance out what it currently there, but it truly needs an overhaul. Noxiyu (talk) 21:00, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Update the section quite seriously. I tried to keep as much of the content already there intact, and instead formatted around it and contextualised with a new lead in. It is still not a 'strong' section, and needs more work, but at least does not give off the wrong impression anymore. I added in quite a lot about mental health due to the significant fallacy that terrorists are mentally ill, and how much research has gone in to disprove it. Ultimately, either some of the examples should be culled, or a more serious re-write of the different core approaches to 'motivations' have been established in research.

Noxiyu (talk) 21:40, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I concur this section needs an overhaul. The verbatim repetition of the section’s second paragraph shortly thereafter under ‘Religious beliefs/zealotry’ alone should be enough reason to trigger a revision. Editor 62 (talk) 15:41, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Your recent editEdit

@Snowded: You just removed 2 sentences that I had copied from other articles, that too with references cited. Can you suggest a way in which we can incorporate those sentences into this article (I am new here)?-Karumari (talk) 16:24, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I hope you realise that terrorism is the world's greatest problem now (you or your city could be the next target)-Karumari (talk) 16:38, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
JamesBWatson, thanks for your advice on my talk page. Can you suggest a way in which we can incorporate those sentences into this article (I am new here)? Thanks in advance for the help!-Karumari (talk) 18:34, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
I work in the field of counter-terrorism Karumari. I know the importance of issues and the need for wikipedia to provide a neutral perspective based on reliable sources. Your edits basically too a position, made accusations etc. which is not encyclopaedic in nature. Read up on WP:RS and then raise what you are trying to get across here. I and others will be happy to help. Oh and by the way its around the fifth worst problem the world faces :-) -----Snowded TALK 22:28, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
I merely copied it from other articles. If it was fine there, why is it unacceptable here (my edit summaries mention which articles)? You only please suggest what we can do to incorporate those sentences into this article. I am new here-Karumari (talk) 08:53, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Karumari, please see WP:INDISCRIMINATE, which is what your last post is doing. You also need to read and understand WP:DUE.
You do not have an inherent privilege to add what you feel like adding to Wikipedia. All edits are subject to WP:CONSENSUS. You need to convince all other editors that the content you wish to see on Wikipedia is appropriate and necessary in the context of the article. I don't see you doing that.
Finally, you need to make sure that you say what the sources say, not your own imagination of what they say. For example: your first sentence: Many terrorist organisations exist in Pakistan and the Government of Pakistan is either unwilling or unable to control them. is sourced to an opinion-column of Owen Bennet-Jones. Where exactly does Bennet-Jones say anything remotely like what you wrote? Please answer that before you proceed. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:26, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
@Karumari: I don't think it's safe to assume that it "was fine there". The article Fatwa on Terrorism is seriously in need of substantial editing to remove clear and unambiguous promotion of a point of view. I may possibly make a start on doing that myself when I have time. Anyone can edit Wikipedia, and it is not safe to assume that just because someone has come along and put something in a Wikipedia article and nobody has yet removed it that it is acceptable. Also, a statement about the government of Pakistan which according to your edit summary you "Copied from the article on fitna" does not appear at all in the page you link to, Fitna; Wikipedia's search facility indicates that it does not appear in any other article; a Google search did not find it anywhere else in the internet. It is possible that it was in some article at the time when you copied it but has since been removed (but not Fitna or Fitna (word), as I have checked the history of those pages). Can you clarify exactly where you did copy it from? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:36, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Please type, "Pakistan is either unable or unwilling to control terrorism" on Google and see if we can use any of those results. I am not sure if I can do that myself, that's why I am requesting you people to check it! Thank you!-Karumari (talk) 10:22, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
I already did that after your first edit - mainly press stories reporting what people have said - no third party. That aside you should not be searching out references to support a political statement you want to make -----Snowded TALK 10:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
@Snowded: So, do you mean that even if it is a fact and we have cited references for those statements you are going to keep removing it? Is there some Wikipedia rule that I am unaware of which disallows political statements?-Karumari (talk) 18:44, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Sorry to butt in, but it looks like the reason given for the removal was neutrality and WP:DUE is part of the WP:NPOV policy. If you are new, I suggest reading these policies carefully as you will encounter them a lot. While the content may be excessive or undue detail for this general article, maybe it would be possible to include it on another article like Terrorism in Pakistan. For the Gardet quote dealing with the definition of terrorism we have a separate article Definitions of terrorism. Seraphim System (talk) 18:50, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
@Karumari: You need to read the various policies you have been linked to. If a newspaper reports that someone makes a claim, we can't make that claim in Wikipedia's voice. For strong assertions such as you made we need to be sure that there is sufficient weight of third party reliable sources to support it. And yes, there are many wikipedia policies that prevent political statements being made as if they are true, although there are contexts in which they can be reported.-----Snowded TALK 09:21, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Seraphim System so can we add the sentences Snowded removed, to the article on Terrorism in Pakistan?-Karumari (talk) 14:50, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't know, I have never worked on that article. The best thing would be to ask on the talk page at that article. Seraphim System (talk) 16:31, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
The sourcing isn't good enough -----Snowded TALK 11:01, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
As a general observation, one should never enter information from articles without providing the proper context. "Many terrorist organisations exist in Pakistan and the Government of Pakistan is either unwilling or unable to control them" could apply to some degree to every country that experiences terrorist attacks. Of course Pakistan also is unique in that it has Pashtun and Baloch territories with militant independence movements, unlike most countries. TFD (talk) 01:22, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
I think this was widely reported over and over again for a period of years in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, but it has been long enough that more detailed academic source should be available. The preference would be to summarize the analysis in academic sources (when they are available), rather than cherry pick facts from media sources. I think the sentence TFD highlighted above could possibly be added to Terrorism in Pakistan, but it would depend on reaching a consensus about the balance and sourcing of the content.Seraphim System (talk) 01:50, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Gained mainstream popularity during the U.S. presidency of Ronald Reagan?Edit

The statement in the lead that the terms "terrorist" and "terrorism" gained mainstream popularity during the U.S. presidency of Ronald Reagan is patently untrue. The terms were in use throughout the seventies, at least, in news reports covering Northern Ireland, the Basque Country and Palestine (ever heard of Carlos the Jackal?). I did a search for "terrorist" in the Irish Newspaper Archive for the years 1969 to 1979, and got 10,000 results, the earliest (January 1969) being a review of the book The terrorists, from Tsarist Russia to the O.A.S. (1968). In 1969 alone it was used in relation to Malaysia, Argentina, Brazil, Italy, Southwest Africa, Angola and Mozambique, as well as the places I have already mentioned. To talk of Ronald Reagan and 9/11 only serves to make the article Americocentric right from the first paragraph. Scolaire (talk) 11:10, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

By way of illustration, here is a Google Ngram that shows the rise of the word "terrorist" in the 1970s, proportionally with the rise of "IRA", "PLO" and "ETA". Note that the highest point for "terrorist" is 1981, the year of Reagan's inauguration and two years before the Beirut bombings (obviously, it spikes again after 9/11, but it was well and truly in the mainstream by then). Scolaire (talk) 15:46, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Return to "Terrorism" page.