Open main menu

Wikipedia β

Talk:Terrorism

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.


Definition in ledeEdit

I know that terrorism is impossible to precisely define, but recent changes have given up and effectively removed all definition from the article lede. It now starts with (my emphasis) "The terms 'terrorist' and 'terrorism' have been used since the late 18th century." This article isn't about some terms, but a class of acts. If there was actually zero agreement on what terrorism means, then we wouldn't need an article on it. Our first sentence should at least start to capture that agreement, even if only partial; additional defs can immediately follow in the next sentence or two to complete the picture. Yes, the new lede is better sourced, but it's essentially useless for readers. We have to do better. --A D Monroe III (talk) 21:01, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

After a week without comments, I've WP:BOLDly inserted the last stable definition back before the start of the current lede. --A D Monroe III (talk) 16:08, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modifiedEdit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Terrorism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:34, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Domestic Terrorism should be expanded upon and antifa should be used as an exampleEdit

Antifa condones violence for political reasons and thus some have considered it to be a terrorist organization . For example Germany limits antifa and has shut down antifa sites and protests for being too extreme and Greece considers it to be a terrorist organization. For the sake of completeness and neutrality we must include all point of view from left right and center. The article seems to suggest terrorism can only be international but not domestic. This is an incorrect view as terrorists like ISIS indigenous to the area terrorize their own people and thus is terrorism and international and domestic at the same time. There should be a link with radicalism and radicalization connecting terrorism with radicalism . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.50.181.175 (talkcontribs) 18:13, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that antifa would be considered terrorists in reliable sources, or for that matter the much more violent groups they protest against. The U.S. government tends to use the term differently in order to legalize police action that otherwise would be illegal. TFD (talk) 20:03, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

violence requirement in definitionEdit

use of intentionally indiscriminate violence as a means to create terror

Does this mean nonviolent stuff like threatening calls / graffiti or funding violence, preaching it, cannot be classified as terror? I has thought it was a broader more inclusive idea. ScratchMarshall (talk) 00:34, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

That is not considered terrorism by experts although governments may classify it that way. Similarly saying that Obama was born in Kenya is not an act of terrorism. TFD (talk) 04:23, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

New paragraph in leadEdit

Should the paragraph added to the lead in this edit be allowed to stand, amended, or removed? Is the single source quoted sufficient to fully support the statements and the editorial tone ("no doubt whatsoever", "peaceful civilians" twice, "gruesome and blood shedding")? There appears to room for a lot of doubt about the statements in the light of what States do in the course of warfare: Noyster (talk), 09:54, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Remove for now. It says way too much in WP's voice, thus stated as certainty, things that are not only debated but actually contradicted in the next paragraph. There may be some point or two among all this that could be okay to state, but it wouldn't make this worth salvaging; just delete, and then maybe try again from scratch. --A D Monroe III(talk) 16:30, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Return to "Terrorism" page.