Talk:Terrorism/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

The Main Event

If everyone is done with the foreplay, let's get on to the main event. We have a term that means something specific in usage, yet it means nothing very specific at all in our Wikipedia definition. We want to fix that. We want it to mean something specific. What has prevented us from doing so for all these years? Politics. It actually benefits some political organizations to have "terrorism" undefined, or defined so vaguely that it doesn't mean anything. When our leaders declare war on terrorism, the first thing we want to know is, who or what is our enemy? If we use Wikipedia as our source of definitions and it can't give us an answer, we have to rely on our leaders for a definition, "Terrorism is violence for the purpose of evil. It's pejorative and very technical. Just leave it to us. We know who the terrorists are."

If you want insight into the definition of Terrorism read: Alex George "Western State Terrorism" Noam Chomsky "The Culture of Terrorism" and "9/11"

Obviously, the above definition does not work in a government of the people. It leaves the potential targets of our representatives open to be anyone. Those of us who saw how such power was abused in Nazi Germany and have vowed to never let such an atrocity happen again, will not allow our nations to adopt the same philosophy. Terrorism must have an objective definition. We must be able to universally identify when terrorism occurs and effectively communicate that information to others. The definition cannot be so loose that it could be interpreted to mean anything or anyone that our representatives want to target. Never again, always, and forever. --Zephram Stark 18:54, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

So wikipedia and "our leaders" are the only sources of definitions of terms like this? Gosh it's too bad nobody has invented a dictionary or even better, an encyclopedia of terrorism that could help people understand such terms. And it's a shame there are no academic departments of political science or national security studies that might focus on such questions and develop definitions based on original research. It's too bad we don't already have a good start on definitions of terrorism that list some of the definitions already in use by experts. I guess it's up to us Wikipedians without any expertise in this area to do original research and come up with fancy new jargon to use to describe these phenomena, otherwise, if I follow your logic, we will be sending people to gas chambers any minute.--csloat 19:08, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Commodore Sloat. I think you proved my point about some people not wanting this thing to move forward. Wo planen Sie, die Gaskammer zu installieren? --Zephram Stark 19:33, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Uh-huh. You're the one proving Godwin's Law on a discussion about definitions. And you're the one proving your insincerity and bad faith by deleting my comments instead of responding to them. You only respond to the above after another user restored my comment. Why has your userid not yet been banned I wonder? I want this page to move forward, but without your "input", thank you.--csloat 20:47, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I think you know as well as I why my userid hasn't been banned: people want a definition for terrorism and I'm helping to give them one. As for your userid—-someone who's entire agenda seems to be to vandalize, disrupt, war-edit, and revert good definitions that are in the process of getting better—-your guess is as good as mine. I've seen people subvert the article discussion process much less than you and get banned. I guess your status at Wikipedia is keeping you afloat. But prove me wrong, please. Show us how you can actually do something productive for this definition. I've only seen you destroy things so far. Is it possible for you to help us build? --Zephram Stark 21:40, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

• Seems to me this article is going to stay locked forever. Pity. The approach of "overwhelm the other editors with verbiage and cute fonts and smiley faces" doesn't strike me as very good way to achieve consensus. Neither does the approach of clearing entire talk pages and then setting oneself forward as the only reasonable disputant. Neither does throwing around language about "userids being banned" without actually doing anything to accomplish that end. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:07, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks JP!! That contributed a lot to the definition. Is there anyone here besides me who has an interest in writing an introduction that conveys information? --Zephram Stark 22:19, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

• I am totally disinterested in the content of the article; I am, instead, wearing my admin hat and monitoring the processes involved in creating and maintaining the article. Articles should not stay locked; and arguments should not be won or lost by attrition. I'm looking for opportunities to unlock the article; you are providing the opposite. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:27, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

• I think you misunderstand the purpose of your admin hat. It is not for lording over lesser editors. It is certainly not to be used to give you and your clan an advantage in editing articles. Your powers as admin are for the exclusive purpose of making definitions better. That is the only reason you or I or anyone else is here. --Zephram Stark 22:39, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

• Well, actually, no. First of all, Wikipedia isn't about "definitions"; this is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. But that's neither here nor there. As an admin, my responsibilities certainly include those of any Wikipedia editor -- improving the content of Wikipedia. However, as an admin, they also include the responsibity of applying the decisions made by the community. That means I have to determine what those decisions are. Since Wikipedia works by consensus, I have to determine what the consensus is. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:26, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

• I don't know how to break this to you, JP, but encyclopedias define words too. Good articles start out with a Lexical Definition, like a dictionary, for the introduction, adding Precising Definitions and Stipulative Definitions to the article main. You are also dead wrong about your alleged hierarchy of Wikipedia editors, but I'll just let you figure that one out for yourself. --Zephram Stark 14:32, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
• Just because I'm such a nice guy, I'll give you a clue as to why your behavior at Wikipedia is self-destructive. It comes from the father of my country, George Washington, in his farewell address, "All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests. However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion." -GW --Zephram Stark 15:35, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

• No, there isn't. You're the only Wikipedian who wants to make any kind of a useful contribution. Thank goodness you're around. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:23, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand the purpose of an encyclopedia, Zephram Stark. It is not the promulgation of original research (i.e.; stuff you made up). It is certainly not to be used to give you opportunities to play domination games and blither about "advantages" and "clans". Your job as an editor for the exclusive purpose of making an encyclopedia better for everyone, not for self-promotion, self-glorification, elevation of nonsense, and general trolling. Making an encyclopedia better for everyone is the only reason we are here: why you are here is an open question. --Calton | Talk 00:32, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad you think your purpose is to make Wikipedia articles better. Could you give us a demonstration of your purpose right here with this article? --Zephram Stark 14:32, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, my existing contribution list should be sufficient proof for non-trolls, but for this article, I'd say removing the contamination of nonsensical original research qualifies as improvement. --Calton | Talk 21:54, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Ground Rules

Due to the controversial nature of this definition, I would like to propose some ground rules for editing the intro to terrorism:

1. I propose that we only make positive changes to the article—-things that make the article better
2. I propose that we let everyone have a voice in deciding if it is better—-that we don't bad-mouth and block people for giving their opinion.

If you have any problem with these ground rules or would like to add some, please speak up now before we get started. --Zephram Stark 22:39, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

WE? Are you royalty, a newspaper editor, or suffer from tapeworm?

Time for more flowers here, I see...

The first ground rule, really, should be that editors with a proven track record of unilaterally held tiny-minority opinions, bad-faith edits, nonsense-peddling, system gaming, and transparent sockpuppetry don't get to set the ground rules. The second ground rule should be that editors as described above should be ignored, and said editors should go get their own Geocities site instead of trying to borrow the well-earned authority of Wikipedia. And you have already given your opinion, and it has been universally rejected. Don't like it? Deal.

If any of that was unclear, perhaps I could dress it up in multi-colored type or garish display fonts, because, after all, you seem to believe that dressing up your mostly content-free blather gives it some authority -- much like putting lipstick on a pig. --Calton | Talk 00:32, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Yawn!! I grow tired of your attempts to convince others that you are somehow better than them. Let your contribution to this article speak for itself. --Zephram Stark 14:04, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm only convinced I'm better than you, at least where actually contributing to an actual encyclopedia with actual facts is concerned. Not a high standard admittedly, given your contribution history, but I'll take it. --Calton | Talk 21:54, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Is your definition of improvement from the DoubleSpeak dictionary: Destruction is Improvement? When I say improvement, I'm talking about comparing the two articles, side by side, to see which is better. Here at Wikipedia, we do that by consensus. However, when we see an article locked, and everyone voting for one version blocked, we know that corruption has subverted consensus. --Zephram Stark 16:41, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Zephram, if you're truly serious about improving the article, you can start by focusing on the content. Responding sarcastically to comments from five days ago is not progress. On a more positive note, I thought that one of your recent comments [1] was a step in the right direction. It described what you want to see in the introduction and gave your opinion of what a great article is. Let's keep moving in that direction. Carbonite | Talk 16:50, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Is it okay if I hold you to the same standard? Pretending that another editor is your pet project whom you need to reform is not progress. On a more positive note,... ...uh... ...well... I can't seem to find anything that you've done to improve the article. --Zephram Stark 17:04, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

My previous comment was some advice followed by a compliment. I honestly liked the direction you were heading in. I had hope that it was a start to this article being unprotected. Then you respond with an insult. Maybe we have different ideas of progress. Carbonite | Talk 17:22, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm quite sure that we do. There is a much bigger issue here than an article. Terrorism's non-definition is just one example of what can happen when some editors think they are the policemen of Wikipedia. Editing by consensus works to the extent that editors consider themselves equal to each other. When you adopt the notion of punishment, the system falls apart. Obviously, if all editors are equal, one editor can't possibly have the right to punish another. As a consequence, we start seeing people argue that some editors are more than equal, that their opinion counts for more because they have administration powers or a long list of edits. That certainly is a valid argument for a proposed hierarchy, but a hierarchy loses the power of consensus, and leaves the lowly editors without choice or real purpose.

What happens here at terrorism will set a precedent for Wikipedia in the future. If equality wins, I see Wikipedia largely replacing all other definitional sources. Conversely, if oppression wins here, I don't see any way for Wikipedia to be taken seriously. --Zephram Stark 17:41, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Discussion on Voting Methods for Definition

Objection: There hasn't been any discussion of voting on a definition by breaking it down like this. I prefer if someone propose a modified paragraph that we can tinker with. This is too artificial; the whole is not a mere sum of its parts. I don't want to further stall changes by asking for a vote on the vote, but can we at least discuss whether this sort of multipartite voting is useful in any way? (Esp. given the announcement that votes will freely change; when can we consider this vote finalized?)--csloat 01:47, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I see your point, that the combo of criteria is important, not just the individual criteria. However, I view this first vote like a "primary", where we will hopefully eliminate the least popular criteria. Once we have a general consensus, we can do a "pass/fail" vote on that combo. If that fails, we will have to consider some other mechanism, or just leave the definition alone. I realize that this method isn't perfect, but it's better than nothing, which is what we have now. If you would like to create a new section with an alternate voting method, please do. I would be glad to vote there. PS: Since your discussion isn't a vote, but rather a discussion of voting methods, I moved it to a section with that name. StuRat 02:13, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

As for when to close the vote, I added another section where we can vote on that. Unless you want a vote on the method of voting on when to close the vote, LOL. StuRat 02:58, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with csloat. A vote on the definition will not solve our problem, because our problem is not the definition. Our problem is a single editor who mindlessly persists in claiming that there is something deeply and fundamentally wrong with the article, and seems incapable of understanding that nobody agrees with him.

StuRat, what do you think of the article as it is now? – Smyth\^talk 17:18, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

It's not bad, but seems to "try to be all things to all people". I would like to get it down to a precise definition, not all of this "may or may not" language. The EU apparently gave up defining it and just listed specific acts, for example. After a precise def, all the other alternate defs could also be included. StuRat 20:36, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

The "may or may not" and "usually" language is poor and was introduced relatively recently. What do you think of this version?

Why not just propose something better, as is done on every other page I've ever participated in. I've never seen a sentence-by-sentence vote on anything, and then a vote on how to vote? It's kind of surreal. I understand the need to vote on things occasionally when there are disputes, but most things such as this can be more easily discussed in context, arriving at a collectively edited paragraph through consensus rather than by having people check boxes on a list.

A serious discussion about this had begun but it was immediately disrupted by Mr. Stark. Unfortunately the page will likely remain locked as long as that user continues his antics. I have posted a note on his page imploring him to stop, and I see another user has as well. I think there is a strong case for WP:RfC or even disciplinary action if he continues the disruption. But in any case, while the page is locked, we can only discuss and tinker with the definition we have, or discuss alternate definitions. We can even take this checklist vote if people think it will be useful, but I would rather hear what specifically is wrong with the current definition and discuss alternatives. I also don't understand why we need to reinvent the wheel in this case.

Generally when I have seen votes on wikipedia they are begun after a long discussion and dispute over a specific item where there are people on different sides. The vote is generally proposed by someone who has been active in the discussion. I haven't been here that long but this is the first time I have ever seen an editor come to a discussion and demand a vote without having participated in the actual discussion leading up to a vote. I'm not trying to say this is illegitimate; just that it is unusual in my experience, and it seems like an odd way to go about doing things. But again, none of this matters while we have the other problem of a user disrupting the page. The page is likely to remain locked until there is no risk of Mr. Stark starting another edit war trying to coin new words.--csloat 21:32, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I didn't "demand" a vote, I proposed one. I just thought somebody neutral (not part of the apparently vicious arguments here) would be in the best position to get things back on track to an actual discussion of proposed changes to the page. If, on the other hand, everyone voted that no change was needed, then there is no longer a need for any discussion at all. Either way, this would hopefully end, or at least, reduce, the bickering. BTW, I have been here before, mostly just reading the discussions, but also made proposals in sections 22 and 23 of archive 5, on August 9-10. I was planning on waiting until the tempers settled down before participating again, but it was looking like that would never happen. As for the definition I would like, you can figure it out by the items I said I support in the voting list, but I will also combine it in paragraph form here, as you like:

Terrorism is life-threatening violence directed against civilians, perpetrated by a non-state entity (or covertly by a nation) and not contained within the geographic region it is designed to "liberate" (from the POV of the perpetrators).

StuRat 22:26, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Votes on Definition

OK, let's not argue, let's vote on the definition. I listed my votes, please add your own, with brief reasons only (list long discussions as separate sections and refer us there, please). Also, feel free to change your votes at any time, as I will:

Terrorism criteria currently in the article:

• A terrorist act is generally unlawful.

• Both Support and Oppose. Almost all official government definitions of terrorism include that it is unlawful. When referencing documents such as the USA Act, it is correct to say that they define terrorism as unlawful. Also, all propaganda used to support government definitions of terrorism would inherently include the constraint that it be unlawful, otherwise, the governments themselves would be guilty of terrorism. Other than the definitions created by governments, or used pejoratively for government propaganda, no use of the term has ever included the constraint that it necessarily be unlawful. Obviously, we need a separate government propaganda definition of terrorism that includes this usage. --Zephram Stark 18:32, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. This term is too vague to be useful, as there are laws against just about anything, somewhere. StuRat 01:27, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Unlawful by whose laws? Kafziel 14:26, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

• It is violent and may be life threatening.

• Support. I would reword it as simply "It is life threatening." This excludes terrorism against property, such as by ELF, which is my intent. StuRat 01:27, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. I agree with StuRat, but as I see it that means I oppose the stated version. I would change it to his suggestion. Kafziel 14:26, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
• Both Support and Oppose. Almost all official government definitions of terrorism include that it is violent and/or life-threatening. When referencing documents such as the USA Act, it is correct to say that they define terrorism as life threatening. Therefore, all propaganda used to support government definitions of terrorism would inherently include the constraint that it be life threatening. Other than the definitions created by governments, or used pejoratively for government propaganda, very little use of the term has ever included the constraint that it necessarily be violent or life threatening. For example, sanctions that kill hundreds of thousands of young children are not necessarily violent by themselves, but they are often referred to as acts of terrorism because the seek to coerce through the systematic use of terror. Obviously, we need separate definitions of terrorism to delineate these distinctions. --Zephram Stark 18:32, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

• The violence is politically motivated.

• Oppose. It may also be religiously or ethnically motivated. StuRat 01:27, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Saying that terrorism is politically motivated is an attempt to cheapen those causes with which we do not agree. Kafziel 14:26, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
• Both Support and Oppose. Government definitions of terrorism like the USA Act do not include the stipulation that the act be politically motivated. Since the USA Act is widely used to investigate and prosecute other alleged potential crimes, it certainly is not constraining itself to only politically motivated investigation of future crimes. All future crimes can be investigated under the USA Act and its enforcement amendment, the USA PATRIOT Act. Other than the government, however, hardly anyone uses the term terrorism to mean anything other than politically motivated attacks. Obviously, common usage and government usage of the term are polar opposites in many respects. --Zephram Stark 18:32, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

• The direct targets are civilians.

• Support. This also includes actions by many countries during WW2, so this criterion is "necessary, but not sufficient" for us to call it terrorism. StuRat 01:27, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
• Support. This means that attacks on military targets, such as the Pentagon on 9/11, or a soldier throwing a grenade into a tent full of officers, would not be considered terrorism, correct? Kafziel 14:26, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
• Both Support and Oppose. Since the government declared that 9/11 was an act of terrorism, people have been trying to figure out a definition of terrorism that fits the example. Obviously the definition we used for the past 200 years, since it was coined, wouldn't work, so we tried to come up with a new one. The stipulation that it necessarily targets civilians was one of the more pathetic attempts at redefining terrorism, but it seemed to stick since the President of the United States supported it. Obviously, we need to separate newer definitions of terrorism from the ones we used before 9/11. --Zephram Stark 18:32, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

• The direct targets may not be the main targets.

• Oppose. Too vague. StuRat 01:27, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Direct targets are themselves part of the main target, or the acts would be pointless. In other words, American airplane passengers are all supporters of the American government, however indirectly. Kafziel 14:26, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
• Hu? --Zephram Stark 18:32, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

• The main targets 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.

• Oppose. Too vague. StuRat 01:27, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. That covers pretty much every form of organization in the world. Kafziel 14:26, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
• Do you really need to ask? This is getting silly. That obviously doesn't convey any information. --Zephram Stark 18:32, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

• The objective is usually to intimidate the main targets.

• Oppose. This is also an objective in politics, traditional warfare, etc. StuRat 01:27, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. I think I could support this if it was changed to something like "...to intimidate the civilian public and in turn weaken popular support...". Kafziel 14:26, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
• Support. All usage of the term seems to include this constraint. Conventional Warfare specifically targets an opponent's ability to fight, not his will to fight. Terrorism is the opposite of Conventional Warfare. --Zephram Stark 18:32, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

• There may or may not be a claim of responsibility.

• Oppose. Doesn't help to define it. StuRat 01:27, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. "Tomorrow it may or may not rain." Kafziel 14:26, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
• Duh. This is the reverted definition that the Wikistapo gang wanted to start with? --Zephram Stark 18:32, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

• 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.

• Support. I feel it is critical to distinguish between actions by governments, which can be found and defeated by traditional warfare, and secret organizations, which can't. StuRat 01:27, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain. I disagree with the current notion of "State Terrorism", but we have enough on our plate right now, so I will simply not vote on this one. Kafziel 14:26, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Where did this one come from? I've never read any definition or heard anyone use terrorism in this context. We can't create definitions for the purpose of precluding the possibility that the authors might be implicated in the definition. --Zephram Stark 18:32, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Proposed terrorism criteria to add to the article (feel free to add your own here):

• It is not contained within the geographic area it is designed to "liberate". This criterion only applies to "wars of liberation" (from the point of view of the perpetrators). The actions of al-Queada in the original war in Afghanistan against the Soviets would not be considered terrorism, using this criterion, as these were largely contained within Afghanistan. The actions by Chechen militants against the Russian Federation would be considered terrorism, however, due to the numerous attacks outside Chechnya. StuRat 01:27, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

• Support. StuRat 01:27, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Are we creating definitions for the purpose of showing how The Soviet Union v. al-Qaeda is the different than The United States v. al-Qaeda? --Zephram Stark 18:32, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

When to close the vote on definition

This is the minimum number of votes on each criterion to "close the vote". At that time I propose a "pass/fail" vote on the combo of criteria which received a majority vote. If that passes, we can then request that an admin make the change:

• 5 votes

• 10 votes

• 15 votes

• 20 votes

• Support. StuRat 02:46, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Kafziel 14:04, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

• 25 votes

• 30 votes

• 35 votes

• 40 votes

• 45 votes

• 50 votes

support--EKBK 17:31, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

• 60 votes

• 70 votes

• 80 votes

• 90 percent agreement of those actively involved in improving the introduction.

• Support --Zephram Stark 17:21, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

• 100 votes

• 110 votes

• 120 votes

• 130 votes

• 140 votes

• 150 votes

• 160 votes

• 170 votes

• 180 votes

• 190 votes

• 200 votes

Outline

The best articles I've seen at Wikipedia start with a general and widely accepted definition and work toward the specific and more controversial offshoots and implications of it. All of the things we are voting upon above are used in some context of the word, but in every instance terrorism means something along the lines of the Oxford English Dictionary definition that Smyth suggested: "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." Since this definition encompasses every usage of terrorism, it, or something like it, should come first. After that, each of the things we are voting upon should be listed in the context in which they are used. For example, a terrorist act is necessarily unlawful when defined by a government (since they obvious don't want to include themselves in the definition). Instead of deciding whether or not to include the constraint, we should say what context makes each constraint relevant. --Zephram Stark 03:33, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I thought one of the principles of a definition was that it shouldn't use any form of the word in the def. If you don't know what "terrorism" is, then will you know what "terror" or "terrorize" means ? Their def seems so broad it would even apply to a schoolyard bully. StuRat 05:16, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree that using "terror" in the definition of "terrorism" is weak. I greatly preferred one of the OED's other definitions that was there for a while, but Zephram changed it to this one. – Smyth\^talk 06:42, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Not using any form of the word is a high priority in creating a definition. It is a priority that almost all dictionaries and encyclopedias do not follow in relationship to this term. If we look at the underlying reasons for making this a priority, we can see why.

The purpose in writing a definition is to help the term more efficiently convey information. To do this, a beneficial definition must be:

• in accordance with popular usage
• concise and objective
• consistent with facts independently provable via the scientific method

Using a form of the word being defined generally goes against the stipulation that a definition be concise and objective. Objectivity, however, must be weighed against considerations of popular usage and truth. In the definition of a panacean word like terrorism, terror is one of very few things that all definitions have in common. Finding a unifying point for such a far-reaching definition is an essential starting point for the article. --Zephram Stark 13:54, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I still oppose use of that def, Zeph, they just "weaseled out" of defining it, IMO, because it was too much work. StuRat 20:49, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

How about we start out with "Terrorism is the systematic use of intimidation for the purpose of coercion" and expand from there? --Zephram Stark 21:35, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I've been watching this page with interest, and it's nice to see someone else actually come in and attempt constructive dialogue, StuRat. Thumbs up. --EKBK 14:19, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Unfortunately, nobody seems to be willing to vote the way I proposed or to propose a new way to vote, so I suppose I won't be able to help after all. Sigh. StuRat 20:49, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

The Wikestapo gang isn't going to vote because they don't care about a good definition. Everyone else is too scared to go up against the Wikestapo gang—-even when they use anonymous IPs, they still get blocked. That just leaves you and I (and EKBK if he wants to help). With only two of us, we hardly need to vote. Let's just talk it through and ignore anyone who isn't here to help. --Zephram Stark 21:26, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Even if we were in total agreement, a consensus of 2 would never persuade an admin to unlock the page and/or make the changes we request. We need EVERYONE here to work together, and calling them NAZIs isn't going to get that to happen. Please let's all tone down the dialog.StuRat 22:33, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

All I want to do is create a great definition. When I say that Jayjg's buddies aren't here to further that cause, I'm stating the obvious—-something that anyone can see by looking through the archives and the dozens of times I have challenged them to say something productive.

I have a little secret for you: JP isn't God. He isn't even interested in making "terrorism" a good article. He only locked the definition because he could see that more people liked the one the one that his buddy Jayjg was opposing. If he hadn't locked it, we would be editing it right now, instead of arguing over why we can't edit it. All you have to do is look in his contribution log to see how many times he has done the same thing on other definitions.

• When you take a break from the personal attacks, you might reflect on the fact that there are 548 other administrators besides me. Any one of them can unlock this article any time. Feel free to ask over at WP:RFP; it would be a relief to have someone else here to take your abuse. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:30, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

• I'm quite sure that all of the other 548 administrators would not lock a definition and then refuse to work on it. You have no idea what I'm talking about though, do you? In your mind, we're the workers and you're the overseer. You are the one who makes decisions, while we are the ones who carry them out. Can't you see that your attitude subverts the power of Wikipedia? Instead of millions of people making small contributions to definitions, a few admins become the only real editors. Do you suppose that you are more qualified for this position than Webster or any of the other great creators of definitional sources? Do you really see no conflict of interest in locking your buddy's definition over another one without even becoming acquainted with the issues? I'm just trying to explain why controlling others doesn't work. You can choose to see this as constructive criticism or as abuse—-it makes no difference to me—-but I can tell you that life gets a lot easier when you consider others to be equals. --Zephram Stark 02:34, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

If you're "quite sure", then please go to WP:RFPP and ask that Terrorism be unprotected. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:14, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Could you take that "quite sure" any more out of context? You know as well as I that the RFPP encourages people to work article locks out with the admins that locked them. If an article should not have been locked, it becomes easier to get the admin demoted than to get the article unlocked by anyone else. --Zephram Stark 14:41, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

If an article shouldn't have been locked, it will be easier to convince another admin that it should be unlocked. There's no reason reason why the locking admin needs to participate in the discussion. In fact, it's often better if the admin is as uninvolved as possible. If you can show that the dispute is settled, a quick note on RFPP will get the page unprotected. Carbonite | Talk 14:58, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. I disagree, so I won't be acting on it. The bottom line is that the 3RR specifically states, "Any reversions beyond this limit should be performed by somebody else, to serve the vital purpose of showing that the community at large is in agreement over which of two competing versions is correct." When JPs buddies were in danger of hitting the 3RR limit, he subverted the process by locking the definition. Not only did the principle of Wikipedia equality suffer as a result, but take a look at the definition he locked!! Is it really in the best interest of Wikipedia to promote that subjective grab-bag of vague and contradictory meanings over the concise, objective, and much more source-citing definition below? --Zephram Stark 15:07, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

(Resetting indent)First, could you please refrain from using a different font and/or font color. It's very distracting to read discussions that have mixed colors. Second, if you believe the page was protected improperly, asked for it to be unprotected on RFPP. If you believe an admin is acting improperly, ask for review on WP:AN/I. Complaining here is not very useful. Carbonite | Talk 15:17, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

You're just full of advice today, aren't you? I can locate my comments easier if they have a slight hue, and I don't find it distracting at all, but your suggestion is certainly noted. I also noted your suggestion regarding the RFPP the first time you said it, and I'm aware of the review process for admins, but homey don't play those games. We're all adults here and can discuss things without running to the teacher every time our feelings get hurt. In fact, our group has a decided advantage over the rest of the world: we all want to create better definitions. I admit that there might be a few who have ulterior motives, but they are easily spotted. They're the ones that pretend to be better than others, lock inferior articles, revert definitions as punishment, and do everything in their power to confuse the issue so that an objective description cannot be written. In short, they're the ones that concentrate on destroying things instead of building better definitions, and their actions speak louder than their words. --Zephram Stark 15:48, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I really don't appreciate your sarcastic tone. I'm trying to help you focus your energies because so far it doesn't appear that you've been too productive. If you want to ignore advice, that's perfectly fine with me, but it might actually help your case to change your tactics.

It doesn't matter that you can find your comments easier if you color them, this isn't your user space. Take a look at any discussion page and I highly doubt you'll find any other editors using odd colored text. Make your sig stand out if you'd like, but whole paragraphs of green text are just annoying.

As I've already said, this isn't the place to rehash your tired arguments of improperly propected articles, etc. Take those complaints elsewhere because they don't belong here. Carbonite | Talk 16:09, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Do you think that by restating the same thing, it becomes truer? --Zephram Stark 17:18, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Maybe the current state of affairs would in fact be best addressed by interested parties "working article locks out with the admins that locked them." After all, we don't want to get the reputation of not playing well with others, Zeph. BrandonYusufToropov 14:48, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Your implied threat came across loud and clear, you sly devil. ;) --Zephram Stark 15:07, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

You might think I'm hitting my head against the wall, but I had to go through this same locked-article scenario to get an NPOV introduction for al-Qaeda. In the end, it was worth it. We have a great definition and no more NPOV disputes.

I have high hopes for Wikipedia. With a little tweaking, I think it could replace all other definitional sources in the next six to ten years, but that will only happen if we can create a system where the best article wins out over the influence of bands of biased editors with confessed external agendas.

Proposal for a New Introduction

I'm going to post the last definition that all of us worked on before this edit war began, with the proposed changes that Sloat suggested. I would appreciate any positive edits by anyone—-changes that make the definition better. --Zephram Stark 00:19, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Jesus, are we already back to this again? The editorial changes that I suggested were to delete this definition and work with the other one. Your agenda is as transparent as it is absurd. I propose a return to the discussion that you disrupted, where some progress was actually being made. --csloat 02:57, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Nobody has a problem with you proposing changes that make the article better. We just don't want you making it worse as a means of punishment for not getting your way. Let your proposed changes speak for themselves. If you honestly feel that you can make the following article better, please do so. I think I speak for most Wikipedia editors when I say that the more positive help we have, the better. --Zephram Stark 14:35, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I could care less about punishing you Mr. Stark I just want you to stop disrupting the discussion. I have proposed changes and you immediately ridiculed them and started posting your bogus definition again. I don't want to make the article below better; I want it deleted entirely and I want to work with the article that we had before you started your little taxonomic jihad against it. If we want to talk about "state terrorism" or other categories that are commonly used in the literature on this topic that is fine but it isn't part of the definition. We don't need to talk about "pejorative" terrorism or your not much better "terrorism as propaganda" and concepts like "criminal terrorism". The notion of "terrorism defined by government agency" is not much better than the ludicrous "FISA-terrorism" was. Again your definition seems more like an attempt to hijack the discussion than an attempt to actually get to some useful work done here. Nobody has suggested anything specifically wrong with the current definition nor has anyone suggested why we can't handle this more on the proper page. So please put this definition to rest and let's work with what we have.--csloat 18:10, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

No, nobody has suggested anything specifically wrong with the currently locked definition. We have five archived pages of people saying that it's just fine. May or may not do this. May or may not do that. Pick the things you want it to mean. It's kind of like a mix-n-match definition. It's all things to all people and doesn't offend anyone. The only teensy-weensy problem with it is that IT DOESN'T CONVEY INFORMATION. Do you know what an encyclopedia is for? It's for definitions that convey information!! --Zephram Stark 19:31, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Again you're trying to evade the issues here. I didn't say the current def was perfect. I suggested specific changes and points of discussion. You go back to whining that it "doesn't convey anything". Then you try to get another user to buy into your bogus definition. when will this end?--csloat 02:53, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

It will end when the definition conveys information. There are many people working toward that end. You are not one of them. --Zephram Stark 16:12, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

This Definition Conveys Information

---

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.
• Terrorism defined by a government agency adds a constraint that it is illegal, thus making it impossible for that government to fall under that definition of terrorism. For example, the definition that terrorism appears to intimidate or coerce, breaks criminal laws, and endangers human life, was 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.
• Terrorism used as propaganda adds a constraint that it is inherently evil. Terrorism is widely used in a pejorative sense to promote the War on Terrorism, the Homeland Security of various nations, and the USA PATRIOT Act. When used as propaganda, terrorism dons a vague, subjective definition that means little more than violence for the purpose of evil.
• Criminal Terrorism is terrorism used for personal enrichment rather than for the more common purpose of political gain. The official state-recognized definitions of terrorism for many countries do not make any distinction between Criminal Terrorism and Political Terrorism (see USA Act for example). This makes it possible, through expanded law-enforcement powers such as the USA PATRIOT Act, for alleged hypothetical criminal activity to be considered a potential act of terrorism, and subject to investigation, before the fact.

---

Gone for two months ...

... and return to find Zephram still up to his old tricks. Good Lord.

Thanks to the admin who locked the article and restored a measure of sanity here. BrandonYusufToropov 10:46, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

It just wouldn't feel like home if Wikipedia had an objective definition for terrorism, like every other Dictionary and Encyclopedia, would it? It's a good thing JP locked down that subjective grab-bag of vague and contradictory meanings or you might have gone insane!! --Zephram Stark 14:19, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Discussion of individual votes

(Discussion encouraged here to keep the voting area from being clogged with discussion.)

Thanks, Kafziel, for your votes in the sections above. You forgot to vote on the proposed addition (non-containment of violent acts to the area they are designed to "liberate"), however. As for your statement regarding civilian targets:

"This means that attacks on military targets, such as the Pentagon on 9/11, or a soldier throwing a grenade into a tent full of officers, would not be considered terrorism, correct?"

I think the Pentagon attack would be considered terrorism, under this criterion, since the plane was filled with civilians. The Pentagon also contains a mix of military and civilian employees. The soldier who threw a grenade into a tent full of officers (in Kuwait, prior to Gulf War 2) would not be guilty of terrorism, just murder and treason, according to this criterion. StuRat 17:00, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

So the attack on the U.S.S. Cole was not terrorism? Also your claims about the Pentagon attack are stretching it; the Pentagon is a military building regardless of whether there are civilians in there - and the plane was the weapon, not the target. I think the "civilian target" point is not necessarily the best way to put this -- perhaps that the attack kills noncombatants (military or civilian)?--csloat 18:16, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

No, according to this criterion the attack on the Cole was not terrorism. You are, of course, entitled to disagree. I still maintain that civilians were an intentional target of the 9/11 attacks, including the Pentagon, not just "collateral damage". The fact that the other planes were intentionally flown into civilian buildings or rammed into the ground shows the intent of the attackers included "maximizing civilian casualties" not minimizing them, unlike most (but not all) traditional warfare. StuRat 19:02, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Stu here, and never even considered the USS Cole attack to be terrorism. That was a strictly military target. If attacking a military target without warning is terrorism, then I think the US has a lot of explaining to do for the last hundred years, especially the parts with the submarines and the snipers and the land mines.

I would also suggest that the Pentagon was a valid target, as any "civilians" inside were (or should have been) fully aware that they were supporting military operations. But I would say that the civilians killed in the plane that hit it were certainly victims of terrorism. Kafziel 19:12, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

To know the motivation for something, all we have to do is listen to the reasons stated by the person who did it. If you consider coercion to be a factor of terrorism, the attacks against the U.S.S. Cole, the Pentagon, and the World Trade Towers were not terrorism because there was no coercion involved. In fact, Osama bin Laden said that those attacks were specifically aimed at reducing the United States ability to fight them through military and force-trade aggression. As such, they fall squarely under the definition of Conventional Warfare.

Knowing this doesn't make our jobs as Wikipedia editors any easier. Now we have to change the definition of terrorism that we've had for 200 years to make 9/11 and the U.S.S. Cole fit under our new description of the term. But that's not all. We also have to change the definition to make it look like we, and our governments, couldn't possibly fit under that description. All the while, we have to remember that Wikipedia isn't the first definitional source, so we'll have to badmouth or reinterpret all pre-9/11 dictionaries and encyclopedias along with anyone who claims to remember how terrorism used to be defined. Are we up to the challenge?

Judging from the horrible condition of the locked intro to terrorism, it looks like we are not. Perhaps that's because it's impossible. Since the advent of the Internet, history can no longer be redefined to suit our needs. We're going to have to skip the propaganda and ulterior motives on this one, and concentrate on creating a definition that conveys information. --Zephram Stark 19:17, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I think it's a mistake to take the stated reason as the real reason. Deception is widespread in both conventional warfare and terrorism. I doubt if bin Laden was so naive as to really believe that even the total destruction of the Pentagon would destroy the ability of the US military to function. Measured in purely military terms, it was far less effective than Pearl Harbor was at destroying our military capabilities. The idea that he was going to intimidate the US into leaving the Middle East would also be difficult to believe. Since I don't think bin Laden was stupid, I agree with those who say his true motive was to "gain publicity" for his cause an thus gain new recruits. StuRat 19:30, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't pretend to know Osama bin Laden's mind, but I do know what he said, and it is consistent with the facts. I can see no reason to second-guess him except for propaganda purposes. --Zephram Stark 19:37, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the votes, Zeph (although I do wish you'd put the extended discussion here so we don't make the voting list unmanageably long). Regarding the criterion about containment, no I did not propose it for the purpose of "showing how The Soviet Union v. al-Qaeda is the different than The United States v. al-Qaeda". My intent was to not include the endless civil wars that frequently use nasty tactics, like massacres of civilians. I consider those to be war crimes, and in some cases genocide, but not terrorism. StuRat 19:23, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

It seems obvious that the three of us actually want to build a definition. If there is anything that all of us can agree upon, I propose that we start with that, working from the generally accepted to the specific additional constraints of usage. Anyone else who actually wants to help is certainly welcome. --Zephram Stark 19:46, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I want to do that, but don't feel 3 people is enough to call a quorum. I wanted 20 votes before proceeding to that stage, and you want 90. So, I get a weighted average of 45 votes to proceed to the next step. Since we are running maybe 3 votes a day, I hope we could hit that number in 15 days or so. StuRat 20:01, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Zeph, I didn't understand your voting response "Hu?". Can you explain ? Also, if you have a link to where bin Laden said 9/11 was to destroy the US military, I would like to take a look at that. StuRat 19:53, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I'll look that up for you. He's said it many times. I saw it most recently in a video interview on Al Jazeera. Regarding the "hu," I'm sorry, I meant to say "Huh?" It isn't that I couldn't understand what the confusing sentence or the confusing arguments were saying if I put my mind to it; it's just that I don't want to extend that much effort on something that we've already discussed so many times in creating the new definition. I consider you and Kafziel to be unbiased since you don't profess to be pushing any particular agenda. Do you two think the new definition that me and several other editors hashed over for months should be thrown in the garbage? --Zephram Stark 20:36, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Overall, I oppose that definition, or should I say those definitions, though there are parts of them I agree with. StuRat 23:13, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

That wasn't really my question. Let me rephrase. Given that we have to start with either the old definition or the new one, which would be easier to edit to make a definitive definition? --Zephram Stark 00:20, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I would say the def that is currently used on the main page is better, then. StuRat 02:09, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Zepoh will you please stop this BS? how many more people need to tell you that your definition is not useful here?--csloat 02:51, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

So far, I have one that doesn't have an obvious ulterior motive. What do you think, Kafziel? Don't be afraid to voice your opinion. These admins talk tough, but Wikipedia wouldn't be much of anything without its editors. --Zephram Stark 17:48, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Zeph, do I understand correctly that you now classify me as someone with an "obvious ulterior motive", because I disagreed with your proposed definition ? StuRat 00:53, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

No. You are the one person who has disagreed with my proposal who doesn't have an obvious ulterior motive. I appreciate honest criticism because it helps build a better article. You are obviously interested in building a definition that conveys information because you are actively working toward that end, so your opinion is quite valuable. --Zephram Stark 12:39, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. BTW, Zeph, did you ever find that bin Laden quote about the 9-11 attack being to destroy the US military ? StuRat 01:20, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Peter Singer quotes bin Laden saying that in his book The Ethics of George W. Bush. bin Laden said it several times in his videos that were blocked by the FBI, but shown on foreign channels. I also read it in a bin Laden interview on aljazeera.net. If I run across a direct link, I'll post it here. --Zephram Stark 16:54, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

A new idea?

with all the archived discussion, I don't know if this has been described before, but what about digressing to history before the intro? e.g. 1)"In order to define what terrorsim is, it is helpful first to give a condensed overview of the the histories of the word and the phenomenon" 2)histories given 3)Presently, terrorism has come to mean ... Dsol 18:46, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Brilliant!! --Zephram Stark 22:07, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Uh, glad you like it. Other opinions? It would be great if we could get a consensus to at least try this, so we can unlock the page for a while. Dsol 23:31, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I would prefer to define it first, then give historical usages. StuRat 00:49, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

There aren't that many people who actually care about making a good article for terrorism, so don't expect anyone to support any particular idea. Most of the people are only here to keep the term from ever being defined. Don't let that stop you. I think your idea is among the best I've heard and I'd love to see you work it up. Obviously an article has to convey information in order to be considered a definition, so the grab-bag on the front page doesn't qualify, but as soon as we have a few real definition proposals, we can vote between them and the matter will be resolved. I'd love to see your idea fleshed out and StuRat's too. The more people we have making proposals, the better the definition will be in the end. Don't worry about the turd-blossom patrol. We flushed them all out with the last go round. If they block your definition without proposing anything better, they will lose their seats of power. Pretty much most of them are gone now, leaving a space for us to make real progress. --Zephram Stark 01:39, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are generally not structured that way, and for good reason. First the articles define the phenomenon, so people have an idea what the article is talking about, then they give the history of the term. As for Stark's contributions, the whole point of his original research is simply to promote the idea that the U.S. government's blockade of Iraq was terrorism, while Al Qaeda's attacks on the World Trade Center were not. The lack of response to him by regular editors is not because they are not watching this page, nor because they fear that they will "lose their seats of power"; rather, it is because they have generally lost patience with Stark's policy violations and his incessant personal attacks. If he continues on this course (e.g. referring to those who disagree with him using terms like "turd-blossom patrol" who have been "flushed out"), he will no doubt get himself banned soon enough. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:12, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

See how easy it is to spot Karl's boys? They drone on and on about how any proposal won't work, but never propose anything better. Don't worry about Jayjg and his idle threats. He obviously doesn't have more than eight or ten administrators in his corrupt little gang. He talks all tough, but every time he blocks someone who's only crime is trying to make a better definition, he shows another dozen people how he's abusing his power, and we always get them unblocked again in very little time. --Zephram Stark 03:19, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree that in general this idea is not desirable for an encyclopedia article, especially when a reader comes to an article knowing nothing about the subject. But I think it might be in this case, since most any reader coming here will have heard the term terrorism before, and will probably be wanting a more general and detailed overview of the what the term connotates beyond his/her own personal knowledge. I also think it could resolve the current deadlock in a way that might eventually lead to a consensus on what terrorism is, and this defintion/lack of definition/discussion of the vagaries of defintion/whatever might eventually be move back to the top. If the problem is as bad as it sounds, however, it might not do much good. Dsol 04:12, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

There's no real deadlock, though. Essentially Zephram Stark wants to re-write the article, and every other editor here (and we're talking 8 or more long-term editors) thinks his edits detract from the quality of the article, and most refuse to talk to him any more. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:18, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Speak for yourself, tough guy. My only interest is in creating a definition that conveys information. My actions back that up. Your actions betray your true motivation as well. --Zephram Stark 12:25, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Please be aware that your next personal attack on this page will result in an RfC. Your behavior is contributing to the delay in unprotecting this article. Carbonite | Talk 17:50, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

If you want me to stop defending myself, I know of a really easy way to do that, Carbonite. Stop attacking me, and concentrate on a making a positive proposal for the article. --Zephram Stark 14:33, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Do you actually listen to your own advice? Carbonite | Talk 14:35, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes. --Zephram Stark 15:10, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Perspectives from Other Languages

Also (though not to derail), I noticed there's no link to the many articles on terrorism in other languages. Very interesting distinctions. German one talks about a systematic and tactical action toward a goal, French about 'un sentiment de terreur,' Russian about an action of violence against someone who's not a formal enemy, Italian stub admits that 'La definizione di terrorismo non è unica,' Spanish page, with a warning about 'la neutrelidad,' starts off by descrbing terrorism as 'una estrategia de guerra asimétrica,' and quickly acknowledges the utility of considering 'la etimología de la palabra.' I would be interested especially in Hebrew, and Arabic if someone can summarize their definitions. Dsol 23:31, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

The same word often has slightly different, or in some cases radically different, meanings in different languages. For example, in French "molest" means to "bother or disturb" (which is also it's original meaning in English, as seen in old movies: "Officer, this man is molesting me"). It's common modern meaning is to sexually assault children. My point is that we will likely find a different meaning for terrorism is each language. I'm not sure how WikiPedia handles this in general, does it restrict itself to the English language or try to define words in every language in which they are used ? StuRat 00:46, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, but I don't think this applies here, since at present we have many world leaders adressing the whole world on the subject of terrorism as "currently understood," knowing that they will be translated into English, Finnish, Chinese.... Thus if there's a breakdown in meaning in some of these translation, I think that far from rendering the foreign language meanings irrelevant, this breakdown is relevant to the article because of the global natures of terrorism and the response to it. Dsol 04:22, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I think that's an excellent idea!! Definitions from other languages are highly relevant. --Zephram Stark 01:50, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not refer to itself as a source. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:14, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I've never heard an encyclopedia refer to itself in any manner. I didn't even think they could talk. --Zephram Stark 03:31, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia in English shouldn't cite itself but I'm pretty sure it can site Wikipedia articles in other languages. I wouldn't recommend this, though, since chances are the other langauges' wiki articles are equally volatile. My point was just that issue this should be included somehow, as it seems to accentuate the difficulty of the definition. I think that the language issue is just one more reason to avoid an overly narrow or technical definition. (I'm taking out that smiley face if no one minds) Dsol 04:22, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Don't mind Jayjg. He's just throwing up another smoke screen. If we listened to the Rove's naysayers, we wouldn't consider anybody's definition of terrorism except the Department of Homeland Gestapo. --Zephram Stark 12:18, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Techinical Solution Might Allow for Unprotection

First of all, Jesus fucking christ. This discussion page is extremely childish and I wish people would not attack each other in the responses to my posts. That being said, I understand the main point of contention is the definition. Since this comes at the very beginning of the article, we can't protect it without protecting the article. I hope we could get consensus to do the following:

1)At the very beginning of the article, start with an exteremly innocuous definition preamble statement we can all agree on. E.g.: "This article is about the word terrorism and the things this word refers to."

2)Immediately after we have a section called Defintion of Terrorism, Definitions of Terrorism, What is Terrorism, etc. This is a seperate section, so we can can keep it protected while unprotecting the rest of the page.

3)Get an administrator to unlock the page, keeping a definition in a locked section.

4)We work on the content of the article a lot. In particular I'd like to see:

• A lot more info about differing perspectives on terrorisim
• More info on history(I'd like to work on 19th century terrorism myself)
• Terrorism in fiction
• quotes by GW Bush, Salman Rushdie, Edward Said, Jacques Derida, Jacques Chirac, Vladimir Putin...
• Terrorism and democracy
• translations of the word terrorism into other languages, the subtle differences that can be lost in translation, and what this means for terrorism as a global problem.

5)After all this hard work (which anyone who wants to whine about the definition/lack of defintion/multiple definitions/futility of a defintion is strongly encouraged to participate in by yours truly) it should be much more clear what an appropriate definition should be. We can then try to reach a consensus on the talk page, unprotect the defintion, and

6)take out the preamble.

I know this is imperfect, but I think it's the best way ahead. If everyone agrees to this we can have the page unprotected in 24 hours. This is an important subject and having it locked is just an embarassment. Wikipedia is precisly the place people would go to find a balanced, npov view on this kind of issue. Dsol 17:35, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

• Agree since I wrote it Dsol 17:35, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Agree that your suggestion would be better than this, and as per my comments below. --Zephram Stark 15:08, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Unless I'm understanding your plan incorrectly, it is not technically possible. An article is either protected or unprotected, they can't be protected at the section level. The only workaround would be to transclude a protected template with the definition, but that's not very plausible. Carbonite | Talk 17:42, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually I'm fairly sure I've see this done in other articles. I'm trying to find an example now... Dsol 17:51, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

There may be an article or two that uses such a translusion scheme, but it's extremely unorthodox and makes editing far more difficult. Hundreds (thousands?) of other controversial articles exist without any type of protection and I don't see the need for long-term protection (section-level or otherwise) here. Carbonite | Talk 17:56, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't see a need for it either, but I don't see how this page is going to get unprotected anytime soon otherwise. Actually, I think I may have been thinking about a neutrality notice on a section, which could also be used, if people would form a consensus about not messing with idea for a while. The whole situation is just kind sad and lame, worrying about piddling techinicalities when the article itself is so obviously underdeveloped. But if we don't do this or something similar, how does the page get unprotected? Dsol 18:01, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Your suggestion of editing the article is completely workable and was working as per Wikipedia guidelines until Jayjg and SlimVirgin started deleting large relevant chunks of the article, and reverting it to what we have now, as punitive gestures. If we can all agree to concentrate on making the article better, instead of punishing each other, there is no reason the article has to be locked.

I agree that we should start with an extremely innocuous definition preamble statement we can all agree on. However, a definition doesn't do anyone any good unless it conveys some sort of information. If there were just one word that we could all agree is associated with terrorism, that would be better than no definition at all: "intimidate" for instance. --Zephram Stark 15:08, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

an easier way to solve this

I believe an admin can protect the page for only particular users - if we make this page so that anybody but Mr. Stark can change it, it should be reasonab;le to unprotect it. The only reason it is protected is because Stark kept messing it up. --csloat 02:24, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

• As far as I know, that is not something admins are capable of. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:50, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

On the other hand, we could just revert any absurd edits he makes and ignore the talk-page trolling, deleting it if necessary. One editor can't hold a page up with so many opposing him. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:00, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

The 3RR prevents one editor from reverting the definition more than three times. It sounds like what you really want is to prevent anyone from editing the article that doesn't agree with your agenda. (For those just joining us, the intro to terrorism hasn't conveyed information for going on three years now. JP, SlimVirgin, and CSloat delete any attempt to define the term, lock non-definitional definitions to the article, block IPs that revert their non-definitions, and call anyone taking a stand against them a "sockpuppet" or worse. If you want to see who is actually helping to improve the article, simply take a look through the archives at all the people proposing objective definitions.) --Zephram Stark 15:39, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Zephram Stark

Normally I don't add needless sections to talk pages, and God knows this one has enough already. But I hope this will be the last chapter in this increasingly pathetic story. – Smyth\^talk 19:12, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

So... your message is that if we don't leave terrorism undefined, that you will get us in trouble? That might have worked in third grade, but here you'll have to present some sort of logical argument as to why you think the introductory definition of terrorism should remain undefined. --Zephram Stark 15:15, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Zephram, the RfC page is quite specific about the reasons why it exists. The content of the article is not the issue. I still hope some compromise can be reached to everyone's satisfaction, but the more I read of this discussion page, the less likely that seems. I think your cause would be better served by adressing the criticism of your conduct on the CfD page in more detail and with less ideology and by evincing a greater willingness to comproimse. As far as content is concerned, I would like to better understand your point of view (which I understand is that a single objective defintion should be agreed upon, though I'm not really sure of the details), but it's greatly obscured at present by your rhetoric the attacks both on you and by you. Perhaps you could host the version of the intro you'd like to see on your talk page, with a justification of why you think it's better viz-a-viz wikipedia guidelines. Dsol 15:42, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

When you say, "The content of the article is not the issue," I hope you are speaking for yourself. For some of us, the content of the article is the only issue. I've been through this same thing on many articles, including al Qaeda. In the end, it didn't matter what people thought of me. The only thing that mattered is that the NPOV tag was removed and has stayed off ever since. We finally have an article for al Qaeda that conveys information and is stable. That same thing can be done with terrorism. There are only a few people here who are trying to keep terrorism undefined. If we concentrate on the article, instead of letting them confuse the issue, we can get the job done.

I have proposed this definition, not as something perfect, but as something that conveys information—-a starting point. The purpose of a definition is to convey information, so that much is a bare minimum. I think my proposal is a step in the right direction because it more closely matches these characteristics for what I believe a great article should encompass. --Zephram Stark 15:59, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Zehpram I looked at your participation on the al-Qaeda page and you introduced a reasonable definition without neologisms or original research, and you did not try to shove it down everyone's throat, you didn't engage in personal attacks and you didn't insist on typing everything in obnoxious colors and fonts. Thgere was no big controversy over your behavior on the talk page because you weren't being completely out of line, like you are here. Your definition on that page raised no controversy. Here it raised controversy because there was original research, there were absurd neologisms that nobody has ever used before, and you "defended" your definition by constant reversions by you and by anon ips that mysteriously appeared whenever you had run out of reverts, as well as by personal attacks and the demeanor of an 8-year-old stomping their foot. Nobody here wants you to offer a starting point for a new definition because of your conduct. The issues here have little to do with the content of your "contribution" -- that issue was settled long ago. The issue is with your conduct, and it is really way out of line. I have been in some disputes with other users before, but I have never seen anything like this. You may think you're just being tenacious but I encourage you to take a step back for a few days and consider this from other perspectives. --csloat 19:11, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe that you looked deeply enough, Commodore. The al Qaeda article was bitterly fought over for months. An NPOV tag has been on the article for most of its existence. The definition was locked for weeks at a time, and people like you played the same games of diverting attention away from the content of the article. When I was personally attacked, I would defend myself. When I saw ulterior motives, I would point them out. At the same time, I worked with everyone who was serious about improving the article until the we succeeded in creating a stable NPOV definition. Occasionally, people still try to undefine the definition of al Qaeda by throwing up contradictory smoke-screens, but their agenda becomes increasingly apparent over time. They're the ones, like you, who only create problems, not solutions.

Please feel free to prove me wrong. Many people have proposed solutions to which you could contribute. I would also love to hear you propose a solution of your own. --Zephram Stark 20:25, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I have proposed a solution, which is for you to STFU. I have also proposed changes to the intro, which you belittled, because your only interest seems to be to cause trouble, rather than to actually improve the article. But the only "problem" needing a solution is your disruption of this page, and the solution is easy - for you to stop disrupting the page. As for the al-Qaeda page, don't give me this "months of debate" crap like you made up about this page. If there are diffs you would like to point us to that show us what you're talking about, please feel free to, otherwise you are just making up more crap.--csloat 23:10, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Just one Sentence

Let's play a little game called Just One Sentence. In it, we'll take turns proposing the first sentence for the terrorism article. Anyone can play, but you can't reject the previous person's proposal unless you can come up with a better one yourself. When we get to the point that nobody can propose something better, that must be the best possible first sentence we can get. --Zephram Stark 18:15, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I'll start:

• Terrorism is the systematic use of intimidation for the purpose of governing, opposing government, or as a type of warfare.
• According to the Department of Defence, terrorism is "the calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological." In practice, the exact definition varies - it has descriptive and prescriptive..." Remove from "Definitions of "terrorism" generally" to "See State terrorism." Where relevent insert into body text. Lose the entire definitions section. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:01, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I disagree that Hipocrite's definition is better because I think the Department of Defence is biased. Asking a government to define terrorism is like asking David Berkowitz to define mass-murderer. If we have to quote a definitive source, I think the OED description, that I propose below, is written from an NPOV. --Zephram Stark 19:29, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

• The word "terrorism" is controversial. There is no agreed upon definition, and the way the term is used varies widely. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:07, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I disagree that the above definition is better that Hipocrite's because Jayjg's doesn't convey any information. I think we can all agree that the minimum purpose of a definition is to convey information. --Zephram Stark 19:29, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Nobody said it was a definition. He claimed it was a good first sentence, and I agree with him. I think we can all agree that trying to wrap up the usage of this word in one short simple straightforward sentence is never going to be possible, and these two sentences are a good way to introduce the article. – Smyth\^talk 19:46, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

In that case, I think we have a format dispute that needs to be worked out before we can agree on how to add content. I'll start a section for that. --Zephram Stark 19:52, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

If it's definitions you're looking for, "Terrorism is the use of force by non-governmental groups or individuals with the intent of deliberately killing or injuring civilians in order to achieve political ends". Jayjg ^(talk) 20:27, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Is that from the Qur'an? --Zephram Stark 20:40, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I thought you were trying to engage in meaningful discourse. I won't make that error again. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:59, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I guess I misunderstood you. When you said that it was a definition, I thought you meant that it was taken from something. Since you didn't provide a source, I thought the authoritarianism of it sounded like the Qur'an. --Zephram Stark 21:08, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Please don't bother with the B.S., Stark, you know the Qur'an contains no definitions of terrorism. Where did your proposed definitions come from? Any of them? You just invented them. Your agenda here is clear, it is purely for POV pushing and disruption. You are dismissed. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:13, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I've never read the Qur'an, but the quotes I've heard from it are consistent with your definition of terrorism being specifically non-governmental: the government gets it's power from God and anyone who disagrees is against God, evil, or some other pejorative term. In a government of the people, like we have here in the good old USA, we would never require government exclusion from a potentially pejorative term. Here, our representatives only get their power from us, so it is possible for them to be just as corrupt as any non-governmental group, or more so. --Zephram Stark 21:36, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

• 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 19:29, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

• Terrorism is life-threatening violence directed against civilians, perpetrated by a non-state entity (or covertly by a nation) and not contained within the geographic region it is designed to "liberate" (from the POV of the perpetrators). StuRat 20:15, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I disagree that terrorism is necessarily life-threatening, necessarily violent, or necessarily directed against civilians. None of those things are required to terrorize someone. I don't think we should preclude the possibility that the word might be used in its original context. --Zephram Stark 20:53, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I think we should, because "intense fear" clearly is not the subject of this article. – Smyth\^talk 21:12, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Let me make sure that I understand you correctly. You're saying that nobody uses terrorism to mean anything that could include "intense fear?" --Zephram Stark 21:21, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm saying that "terrorism" in the ultra-broad sense that you propose, namely "any policy that causes intense fear" is not the subject of this article. – Smyth\^talk 21:25, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe that anybody proposed "any policy that causes intense fear." Where did you get that quote from? The closest I can find is the OED definition that you tried so hard to convince me was the most authoritative source. Personally, I would rather go with Webster. --Zephram Stark 23:05, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

• Terrorism is the opposite of conventional warfare. While conventional warfare reduces an opponent's ability to fight, terrorism attempts to reduce an opponent's will to fight. --Zephram Stark 20:53, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Stark nobody wants to play your game because nobody trusts you. You pretend to be interested in improving the article until you get somebody sucked into discussing with you, then you start trolling, attacking, and playing games that make it clear you're not really interested in anything but causing trouble. So please stop it. --csloat 23:38, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me". Jayjg ^(talk) 23:43, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Format for the Article

It appears, from the section above, that we have a dispute over how the article should be laid out. Please offer your suggestions.

I think of an encyclopedia article as useful when it immediately conveys information. A user might want just a quick overview, in which case she might only want to read a sentence or two. Deeper researchers would want to start with an overview and then a table of contents. I can't think of anyone who would want to read an introduction that didn't tell them anything. For that reason, I propose that the format for our article be as follows: we start with the most definitive sentence that we can all agree encompasses terrorism. (It doesn't necessarily have to constrain it to our particular meaning yet.) After that, we constrain it further, into distinct categories if we have to, giving the full context of each usage. If you think there is a better way to format the intro to an encyclopedia article, please share it with us. --Zephram Stark 20:06, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I think an encyclopedia article is useful when it immediately conveys factual information; articles which make unsourced and false claims, or original research are inherently not useful. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:22, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Is your definition of factual something that is consistent with the scientific method, or does your factual have a higher, religious meaning? --Zephram Stark 20:36, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean by that exactly, Zephram? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:02, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

It sounds to me like Jayjg is hinting that one or more of the sentences is factually incorrect. By my definition of factual, none of them could be considered incompatible with the scientific method, so I was wondering if he had a different definition. Often people cite religious beliefs as fact, so I was wondering if he meant they weren't factual from a religious standpoint. --Zephram Stark 21:16, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree, in general. Have as precise a definition as we can agree upon up front, then list all the history and alternative defs, eventually getting to the wacky ones (I suppose al-Queda defines anyone who doesn't believe in their brand of Islam as a terrorist). On the other hand, if all we can agree upon is something like "an act that may or may not be violent, may or may not be against civilians, who may or may not be the primary target, for what may or may not be purposes of intimidation for what may or may not be political goals", then forget it. If that's all we can agree upon we might as well just say "We don't know !" and end it there.StuRat 20:27, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I feel confident that if we continue to propose improvements to the first sentence proposal above, expanding the definition as needed to encompass the usages of everyone, we can come up with a first sentence we can all agree upon. --Zephram Stark 20:36, 7 September 2005 (UTC)