Talk:Definition of terrorism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

List of designated terrorist organizations[edit]

Re the repeated revert: [1][2]... WTF?! How can a "see also" wikilink to list of organisations defined as being terrorist organisations by various governments not be relevant to a section that details what various national governments define as terrorism?! Nuwewsco (talk) 17:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any complied list is a derivation of a definition of terrorism it is not directly related to terrorism. If you still think it should be included then take it to the talk page and see if there is a consensus to include it. -- PBS (talk) 22:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My edit added a "See also" link to List of designated terrorist organizations in an appropriate, and relevant position within the existing content.
From what you've said above, I don't think you're making yourself clear as to what you're getting at, or else your simply talking complete crap!
  1. You've stated that the article List of designated terrorist organizations is a derivation of the definition of terrorism - which is what this article is about
  2. List of designated terrorist organizations is patently related to terrorism, by it's definition
You might have noticed (e.g. by looking at other pages on the Wikipedia) that adding a "See also" link to other relevant articles already on the here is pretty standard, and helpful to users wanting to find out more about the subject. My previous edit was not a significant change to the content of this page; are you seriously going to argue the toss about this?
Given it's such a trivial change, which is certainly appropriate for this page and well within Wikipedia's policies, I do get the feeling you're just trolling for an edit war here by repeatedly reverting other peoples edits... Nuwewsco (talk) 23:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"List of designated terrorist organizations patently related to terrorism" yes it is, and we have an article on terrorism, but it is not directly related to definitions of terrorism. -- PBS (talk) 03:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not related to the definition of terrorism, any more that the different government definitions of terrorism which a) is relevant, and b) is included!
The "see also" link I added just backs up the existing content on this page, and also gives an extremely good visual representation of exactly how much the various governments differ in their opinions of what is (and isn't) a terrorist organisation - which the "In national law" section is all about.
To list what different governments see as terrorism, but to remove a link to such a highly relevant page is just petty. Nuwewsco (talk) 08:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Both your edits did not just add it to "see also" you also added it to the section National definitions. -- PBS (talk) 03:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The entry under the national definitions was actually a "see also" link as well, using the {{see also|<articlename>}} template. Nuwewsco (talk) 08:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First appearance of the word in English[edit]

I'm disappointed that someone tagged the statement "A 30 January 1795 use of the word 'terrorism' in The Times, possibly the first appearance in English" for two reasons. One is that the assertion is reasonably qualified: "possibly" does not exclude an earlier appearance of the word, although that would be unlikely based on the etymology provided in the body of the article -- with references. The other is that a source could easily be provided by consulting the Oxford English Dictionary, which provides ample dated uses of English words. The OED would (1) provide an earlier use; (2) confirm it is the earliest use its editors have been able to find; or (3) provide a later use -- in which case, this usage would still be kept (common sense shows the OED, despite its authority, is wrong here), but with a note that the OED failed to find this one. (And I'd do this bit of scholarly drone work, except I'm housebound today with my daughter & can't get to a library.) -- llywrch (talk) 15:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There must be plenty of people with easy online access to the OED via their university, but unfortunately I am not one of them. Hans Adler 16:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OED online:
  1. Government terrorism: 1795 Hist. in Ann. Reg. 112/2 It would..renew the reign of terrorism.
  2. General terrorism: 1798 MATHIAS Purs. Lit. (ed. 7) 132 The causes of rebellion, insurrection,..terrorism, massacres, and revolutionary murders.
The work that Google has done putting books and journals on line means that it is not unusual to be able to find mechanically older sources than they have found using traditional human research, (for example the earliest use of "terror bombing" they have is 1941 but a Google book search turns up usage in the 1930s). So unless the OED is qualified in the text the wording here of "probably" seems appropriate. The thing is that both sources seem to assume that people knew what terrorism meant as the word is no in quotes which is so often done with new usage, so it was probably the buzz word of the day and it will be found in lots of near contemporary sources. It would be interesting to know if this is a Wikipedian's OR or if it comes from some other source. If the former and it is correct then someone ought to send it in to the OED they always like to hear of this sort of finding. -- PBS (talk) 19:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I had a look around the net and at the history of the source of the image. It appears that it was copied from "Terrorism, firstmention.com, although the original uploader did not credit "david_at_firstmention.com". -- PBS (talk) 20:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm flattered that my criticism has attracted an immediate & thoughtful response, my point was that this is one of the points where the rule against original research causes more harm than good. I have no problem with the original statement that the word "terrorism" first appeared in English in that publication on that date. Common sense leads one to conclude that either it is the earliest usage, or it isn't. A source has been provided for the skeptical reader to verify that it was used on that date in that publication. And if a skeptical reader finds an earlier verifiable usage of the word, the reasonable thing to do in that case is to substitute this example for the newly discovered one. The only people who would object to this assertion going unreferenced are the pedantic-minded who refuse to recognize any sensible exceptions to rules or policy, & annoy the hell out of those of us who do recognize them. Sadly, the pendants have the upper hand in many policy disputes at the moment. Or at least see no problem with tagging statements & running on after their goal of increasing their edit scores, as happened here. -- llywrch (talk) 17:57, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The edit in question doesn't necessary look as if this was about hair spliting w.r.t. original research. I think the editor may simply not have easy access to an OED, or may not be aware that the OED is the canonical source for this kind of information, or may simply not have been sure that it was looked up in the OED at some point, rather than just guessed. Hans Adler 19:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the text next to this image is the statement that the word "terrorism" first appeared in English dictionaries in 1798; this verifiable usage is dated to 1795 -- which makes the tag seem very pointy to me. If anything in the paragraph needs to be sourced, it is the implied derivation of "terrorism" from the French "Reign of Terror"; if this is not true, than one can presume that even earlier usages of this word can be found. But instead it looks as if someone saw "possibly first appearance", tagged it, & felt very proud of her/himself -- rather than actually think about what the article said & either fixed the statement or put the tag in the appropriate spot. -- llywrch (talk) 23:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See above The OED definition for state terrorism is given as 1795 (an independent source from that of the Times but likely to be later than January). Then usage for terrorism in general is three years later in 1798. This is not surprising because France actively exported its revolutionary ideas and it was not unusual for Jacobins to use terror to gain power and hold onto it. For example see the Parthenopaean Republic and Nelson's reaction against the Jacobins at the end of the Neapolitan campaign in 1799. That is not to say that his actions were less sever than those of his enemies, it just by this point in history both sides were more than capable of supporting revolutionaries and counter-revolutionaries who used terror to help seek and hold onto power. So yes the etymology section needs a rewrite. --PBS (talk) 04:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
why use the word - 'terrorism' - in the first place... the suffix serves nothing
supplying an extra syllable (-ism) to terror does not add meaning: it, to the contrary, obfuscates and therefor subtracts
if academics, learned as they might be, use more than a dozen words for definition; they failed
only M. Cherif Bassiouni "'Terrorism' has never been defined..." cuts it (by admitting defeat?)
Rosalyn Higgins, in the first sentence, comes close with "Terrorism is a term without any legal significance. It is merely a convenient way of alluding to activities, whether of States or of individuals widely disapproved of and in which wither the methods used are unlawful, or the targets protected or both." but where's the legality in/of terror? since when is law significant to hoodlums?
and Alex P. Schmid in a seemingly to-the-point and rather concise "Act of Terrorism = Peacetime Equivalent of War Crime" seems to miss the point of 'war crime' being a hollow phrase to begin with; for war starts with shoving/pushing/kicking any however far fetched idea of legality, not ot mention decency, aside and is in & of itself (unless we've recently installed honour among thieves) a crime
i find the definition of terrorism: "the political use of terror and intimidation" from The American Heritage Dictionary (1983) acceptable... just
Sintermerte (talk) 03:00, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

religious terrorism[edit]

According to me religious terrorism is due to illitracy.no one religion in the world allow us to destroy someone, to creat a trouble for otherz.if person either hindu,muslim or cristen if he knows every thing about his religon,he will commit wrong thing,he will not disturb anyone.he will not think evil.and he will not chose the path of terrorism (BY DR AYESHA DIDDIQ GHORI) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.178.182.168 (talk) 01:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Definition for purposes of insurance[edit]

I think that the article should make some mention of insurance - specifically now (after September 2001) that "most insurance companies exclude terrorism from coverage in Casualty and Property insurance", it is important to define "terrorism" for purposes of insurance, not just crime. Some insurance companies define "terrorism" in the their product disclosure statements; here's an example from RAC Insurance in Australia. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a new section "In general insurance policies". Mitch Ames (talk) 04:08, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a chapter on this issue in

Thomann, Christian, ed. (2004). "3. Definitions of terrorism". War, terrorism and insurance in Europe after September 11, 2001. Verlag Versicherungswirtsch. pp. 36–41. ISBN 3899521617.

It puts into context from 1946 when the London market first started to look at the issue of a terrorism exclusion clause.

However on page page 38 it is stated: "Flowing the St Mary Axe bomb in London in 1992 in the heart of the insurance district in the City of London as we will hear from Steve Atkins reinsures withdrew from covering terrorism so far as the UK was risks were concerned. In response Pool Re was set up [by the UK government]." So this was a major if localised problem a decade before 9/11.

See also

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2005). "4.3.7 United Kingdom". Terrorism risk insurance in OECD countries(Volume 9 of Policy issues in insurance) (illustrated ed.). OECD Publishing. pp. 255–260. ISBN 9264008721.

This article by the OECD contains a further explanation of the British Government's "Pool Re" and the amounts paid, it also give the statutes under which terrorism for the purposes of insurance are defined and states that in the UK domestic households are usually covered under ordinary insurance for terrorism. It also details the changes made by the UK government to "Pool Re" in response to the reaction of the international reinsurance market in response to the 9/11 attacks.

But as can be see by the OEDC document with five pages dedicated to the UK alone, this is a very big field and probably deserves its own article as the next section which deals with the US describes a totally different history and a different set of definitions of what constitutes terrorism for the purposes of government compensation/insurance.-- PBS (talk) 10:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the section slightly - not all terrorism is excluded by RAC Insurance. However, I've now exhausted my knowledge of the subject - which was limited to what I read in my own house insurance policy. Still now that we've got the ball rolling, I'm sure someone more knowledgeable than I will give the subject the coverage it deserves. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me get this straight[edit]

States terrorize Academics to reach a concensus that wouldn't terrorize the Masses -when they notice their State is a terorist State too- which in turn would terrorize the State itself.

Some days anti-statist views look more sensible then others. 94.55.181.247 (talk) 23:32, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Citation[edit]

A quotation is attributed to James M. Poland on the basis of a reference to (link [69]) to "A.K.M. Atiqur Rahman Economic Cost Of Terrorism In South Asia: The Case Of Bangladesh p. 3." However, the link to that paper is dead, and finding an alternative link has no such mention or quote. -Reagle (talk) 16:34, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scholars and recognized experts section[edit]

The final quote by Dr. Sergey Zagraevsky seems to have little to do with the definition of terrorism, as it appears to be his opinion on terrorism itself. I don't think this quotation belongs in a list of proposed definitions. Anyone?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.43.5.38 (talk • contribs) 21:13, 9 March 2012‎

No direct answer for 24.43.5.38, but this article:

Contains a list that the authors think are influential. In the paper the authors argue that much of the research is being funded by governments and as such "An overwhelming majority of writers on terrorism,counterinsurgency and associated topics operate within the dominant paradigm of assuming the legitimacy of Western governments and defining the ‘terrorist’ and the ‘insurgents’--at least for public consumption--in terms consonant with the needs of great power." As the abstract to the article says:

"In this paper the authors draw upon the tradition of Power Structure Research to analyse the increased interpenetration of the military and the social sciences, particularly the recruitment of anthropologists and the adoption and adaptation of counter insurgency strategies. It is argued that such actors should be understood not as disinterested ‘experts’ but as being organically embedded in a military–industrial–academic complex."

-- PBS (talk) 17:26, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the STL?[edit]

In January of 2011, the Special Tribunal for Lebanon, a court established in order to try those responsible for the "terrorist attack" on Rafic Hariri (ex prime minister of Lebanon), issued an interlocutory decision on the definition of terrorism in international law. Surely, this should be mentioned in the article (the part on "definitions in international law). The webpage, from which the decision can be downloaded, is linked here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thehistorian10 (talk • contribs) 18:33, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Genocide definitions, Definitions of pogrom and Definitions of fascism for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Genocide definitions, Definitions of pogrom and Definitions of fascism are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genocide definitions until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:54, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wording etc.[edit]

Snowded, the sections that are capitalised are those that describe specific conventions. Your wording mixes up tenses as well as has Wikipedia's voice defining what is terrorism rather than the conventions. Gob Lofa (talk) 12:14, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The other sub-section headings are capitalised but I'm not fussed either way on that but if you want to make them consistent do it for all. I'm not sure just what point it being made in that sentence and I think both wordings are confused but I can't immediately think of an alternative. Ideas? ----Snowded TALK 12:24, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking about it. The various sectoral counter-terrorism conventions define terrorist and criminal activities might be better ----Snowded TALK 12:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They're capitalised because those section titles are also the names of the conventions, which is not the case in this instance. Why do you say "and criminal"? It's only focusing on one crime, terrorism. Gob Lofa (talk) 12:42, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK have changed capitalisation. "defines as terrorist particular categories of activities" maybe? ----Snowded TALK 12:53, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. Gob Lofa (talk) 13:04, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Definitions of 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:58, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

History of Terrorism Definitions section[edit]

I think this section should be merged. It see overly long and represent a large break before getting into the actually subject of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:DA42:200:7840:67D3:9DF:F64C (talk) 00:48, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Partial section merge completed. Klbrain (talk) 22:28, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Definitions of 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:25, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lede ambiguity[edit]

The fifth sentence of the lede reads "To avoid this kind of confusion, the most common definition of terrorism is used, which includes the following:"

What is this "most common definition"? Are we to assume it includes some/all of the points to follow? And, more importantly, who uses this "most common definition"? The Sage publication "What is Terrorism?" that is referenced at the end of that sentence? This ambiguous passive construction ("is used") only serves to confuse the points made earlier in the lede. Mark Froelich (talk) 01:37, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Definitions of 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:07, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Definitions of terrorism[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Definitions of terrorism's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "tws11janbcvc":

  • From Terrorism: Paul Reynolds; quoting David Hannay; Former UK ambassador (14 September 2005). "UN staggers on road to reform". BBC News. Retrieved 2010-01-11. This would end the argument that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter ...
  • From History of terrorism: Paul Reynolds; quoting David Hannay; Former UK ambassador (14 September 2005). "UN staggers on road to reform". BBC News. Retrieved 2010-01-11. This would end the argument that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter...

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 01:17, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear textbook definition[edit]

I am not sure about the meaning of the second bullet point in the article ("It can only be committed by non-state actors or undercover personnel serving on the behalf of their respective governments"). If "their" refers to both the "actors" and the "personnel" then terrorism is always on behalf of a government. I cannot find this statement in the referenced source. JonH (talk) 18:30, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Definitions of 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:41, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Definitions of 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:29, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Point of Clarity[edit]

Hi my edit was deleted and noted as original research which isn't true I had citations. RGm04 (talk) 05:27, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is article called "definition of terrorism" so it is about definition not about terrorism as whole. Summary of different sources is not good and removing well sourced content is also not good. When we talk about definition need to be said to there is no universal definition. Mahmoud Sadri definition with year and source under "Scholars and recognized experts on terrorism" section is ok to be added in my opinion. 93.86.157.99 (talk) 05:43, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming that neither of you have edited here before so please read the welcome notices which provide guidence to new editors. Learning how to edit on a controversial article like this is, shall we say, brave! Just having sources is not enough we have to pay attention to a proper balance and also avoid original research and synthesis in the way we use those sources. We also need third party sourcing to establish something as notable. -----Snowded TALK 05:52, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UN "definition"[edit]

This is "Definition of terrorism" article and in many sources it is stated to there is no universally accepted definition of terrorism. The UN does not have a definition, they try to make it but instead they use "description" since 1994, and some reader can think to that is some valid approved thing, in fact that is not. However induvidual national law's around the world has it and has it before 1994. The main note about this article should be to there is no universal worldwide definition, and also Hoffman note is well about it. Hoffman point is to it is not just about countries, sometimes in the same country different agencies has different definitions and that is pretty notable to be said. Also whole content in this article is pretty clear 1. There is no universally accepted definition. 2. National laws has it, defined and legally binding 3. The UN try but it can't make it, instead they use just description of it but without legal or law force about it. 4. When the UN make it, lets say under "Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism" then we can say to that is something accepted and to it should take precedence as a part of intenational law under single, legally binding, criminal-law definition of terrorism, what has precedance 93.86.157.99 (talk) 10:11, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK so you don't like the way the UN did it - that doesn't matter. The US view has similar issues and does not have world wide agreement. So we report the ambiguity and list what we have. Hoffman belongs in the body of the article not the lede. The lede is meant to summarise the article so that material belongs in the body. -----Snowded TALK 10:38, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I explained pretty well, when the UN get definition, it goes on the top. It is not about what someone like or not, it is about the facts and nicely expained in the content. Good part of the article talk about problems in the UN about making working definition and the need to have one, so why something what is not working comprehensive agreed definition should be on top. The main problem is, if we put something what is not comprehensive and agreed definition on the top of this article is missleading, when the UN try to make some definition and good part of content adress about that trying but they did not finished making it. Definitions first started in a national laws (in many defined well for own national use) after in the UN and there is still not agreed, the US is one example it can be added one from UK or from France instead, no problem for me. I explained my edits really good. And you seems to don't like something. I checked the rules here, well noone here own any article it is said per rules. More users should be consulted, not one user like or not something. And to say again this article name is "definition of terrorism" if it is looked in neutral way, if it is defined in national laws then that is it until the UN make working comprehensive definition. We can't say to work is done when it is not and numeorous sources says to there is no universal comprehensive agreed definition and about many problems to make one under international law. Also I didn't removed that UN description of it, it stays there after into why is used that and not definition.93.86.157.99 (talk) 10:56, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Even making allowances for your poor english there is no excuse not to learn how to edit here and WP:BRD is clear - you have to get consensus on the talk page before changing. You have no right to change the article jhust because you, in your opinion, have expained your edits "really good". -----Snowded TALK 13:28, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, well no problem. I tried to not misslead people and follow sources and content. If you think to there is the definition, international agreed comprehensive definition made by the UN, to work is done about that in the UN, to there is no any problem, if you like to misslead people to feel own happiness, no problem, good for you. But real life is different thing and you know it. Bye bye. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.86.157.99 (talk) 13:41, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well if you decide to continue editing then in addiiton to WP:BRD you might like to read WP:NPA -----Snowded TALK 13:48, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an academic consensus on what constitutes terrorism?[edit]

This article suggests that there is scholarly consensus in regards to Alex P. Schmid's findings, which only seem to suggest that terrorism somehow involves violence, which is obviously far too broad. It, then, effectively puts forth an argument in favor of Bruce Hoffman's criteria, which is as follows:

ineluctably political in aims and motives; violent – or, equally important, threatens violence; designed to have far-reaching psychological repercussions beyond the immediate victim or target; conducted either by an organization with an identifiable chain of command or conspiratorial cell structure (whose members wear no uniform or identifying insignia) or by individuals or a small collection of individuals directly influenced, motivated, or inspired by the ideological aims or example of some existent terrorist movement and/or its leaders; and perpetrated by a subnational group or nonstate entity

I think that a lot of people would make the argument that acts of state terror, such as those perpetuated by the Argentine Anticommunist Alliance, who were not a subnational group or nonstate entity, were constitutive of acts of terrorism.

To go even further, the utilization of terror is often cited as one of the primary means of social control within an analysis of totalitarianism, for instance, in her critique of the former Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, in Hannah Arendt's The Origins of Totalitarianism, which is a widely read and highly influential text, as well as is but one of many examples of the inclusion of acts perpetuated by state actors within a general understanding of terrorism, particularly in consideration of analyses of authoritarian or totalitarian regimes. Almost everyone who studies such things considers for state terror to be tantamount to the praxis of such regimes, though some may consider for state terror to be something other than terrorism.

To me, it seems like terrorism generally denotes the utilization of political violence. It is often connotative of political violence in the service of some form of fanaticism, though, as I am sure that there is counter-example to be found, such as a terrorist cell that isn't necessarily "fanatical", it may very well not be the case that that could not be included as a necessary condition. As the mere utilization of political violence would include too much, for instance, the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, it is insufficient. To my knowledge, debates concerning the definition of terrorism have, by no means, been resolved, which this article states in plain language within the section on academic definitions by scholars.

As, as the adage goes, "one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter", it is certainly common within, at least, the Left to reject the term altogether. There are many reasons for this, many of which I find to be fairly dubious, but, to be charitable, the best going argument accepts something like my criteria as per the colloquial usage of the term, namely that terrorism is generally considered to be the utilization of political violence in the service of some form of fanaticism, with "fanaticism" considered as a subjective distinction designed to pejoratively describe an ideology which the speaker happens to dislike. Though I don't happen to agree with much of the far-left in that calling something "direct action", "guerilla warfare", or "insurrection" somehow absolves the alleged of the charge of terrorism, there is, at least, some salience to that what is considered to be "fanatical" is just bound to be somewhat subjective.

This article makes note of that terrorism is often defined as political violence in the service of ideology, which is more or less where I've gleaned so-called "fanaticism" from. Personally, I do think that fanaticism, or an absurd devotion to an ideology, not only exists, but is disquietingly common, but, when it comes to defining a term, one that has a clear rhetorical use and obvious political consequences, it certainly may become problematic to use a word that is almost always levelled pejoratively.

Those last two paragraphs are just some of my ruminations, but I don't, at all, know why this article states that there is scholarly consensus upon what constitutes terrorism, as that was directly contradicted by the very scholar whom much of this article is based on.

tl;dr:

1. Should state terror be included or excluded from a definition of terrorism?

2. Should one bite the bullet and claim that acts akin to the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising are constitutive of terrorism or should the term be otherwise defined?

3. If terrorism denotes political violence and connotes fanaticism, and, if "fanaticism" is inherently subjective, is the term, at all, useful or does it merely describe political agents whom the speaker happens to dislike?

4. What is rhetorically operative when someone invokes "direct action", "guerilla warfare", or "insurrection" in contradistinction to "political terrorism"?

None of these questions have been answered such that there is any form of consensus, which the article explicitly affirms via one of its primary sources who claims that, after undertaking a large survey of definitions of terrorism, the only commonality that could be found was that it somehow involves violence, criteria which is clearly far too broad for an adequate definition.

Note: You can get around the second question with the caveat of self-defense, but, then have to define self-defense, which is bound to lead to some of quandary or another, such as, in determining who has the right to self-defense, a reintroduction of the question of fanaticism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daydreamdays2 (talk • contribs) 22:37, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So, there is no scholarly consensus for both the above reasons and what Schmid explicitly states, which appears in the article itself.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Definition_of_terrorism&oldid=1206916817"