It's an extended apologia by absentia for terrorism conducted by states. The terror bombing of Guernica, Dresden, Tokyo, anyone? That wasn't terrorism? What a tragic joke. The only way to correct this is to define your terms, and rewrite your article title, to something like 'History of Terrorism by Non-State Actors."Haberstr (talk) 21:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

No at best they could be war crimes, and I seriously doubt you find many intelligent people claiming Dresden or Tokyo were even that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.180.193 (talk) 01:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Most intelligent people consider the "terror bombing" of London, Guernica, Dresden and Tokyo forms of terrorism. Note these bombings of civilian areas, for the specific purpose of breaking the enemy's will, are generally labeled "terror bombing." Pretending governments don't commit terror is one side, the very weak side, of an argument; pretending it is fact and just dismissing and editing out those who think governments can commit acts of terror is POV. At this point, this entire entry is POV on a grand scale. For a start, why not include Guernica as an example of terrorism? Yes, of course it is also a war crime, that doesn't exclude it from being an act of terror (and I'm fine with the UN definition, just apply it to government actors).Haberstr (talk) 17:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

You cant argue they terrorism, simply because they don't meet the critria of a terrorist act, they were uniformed soldiers, and the objective of Dresden and Tokyo at least was to hinder the enemies war efforts, not kill civilians the Allies even went as far as to warn civilians to leave the cities. In the case of London the nazis goal may have been to break the spirit of the British people, but 1. the majority of civilians not engaged with the war effort had left the city, 2 traditional battles had been won not by slaughtering the enemy but by breaking their spirit, so in an age of total war that would mean break the whole nation. Terrorism as is from its developmental point view the use of violence often by clandstine means to achieve a political objective, or instigate social change. Now governments can engage in terrorism, as is mentioned in the Cold War Proxies and World War 2 sections. But uniformed soldiers commit war crimes not terrorism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.181.18 (talk) 20:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

You have a definition in mind that is not an agreed upon consensus definition. Many creditable people and scholars think of terrorism as the deliberate and/or knowing targeting of civilians in order to break the will through 'terror' or just to induce terror outright as a means to an end. According to this understanding it's a technique, and what sorts of entities or individuals commit it is not relevant. Others, primarily government-sponsored scholars and bureaucrats, have decided that only non-governmental actors/entities can commit terror. Again, I'm not arguing with your definition, I'm just telling you it is obviously not the consensus definition (as you can read about if you go to the Wikipedia terrorism entry).Haberstr (talk) 01:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

the term government sponsored scholars, seems POV, the definition used here was the common sense consensus Fanra sherzo etc came to, oh what is percieved as terrorism and that is a style of asymmetrical warfare, used by clandstine groups against states to effect political change, if you zealously stick to this idea of civilian targeting then what qualifies as a innocent civilian? THe IRA claim not to target civilians, often giving warnings before bombings yet they considered anyone who worked for the British a fair target. So do you feel the IRA shouldn't be included as terrorists? The article at no point tries to infere the right or wrong of groups actions just the actions themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.181.208 (talk) 03:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand a basic concept of any encyclopedia article: it's not for us to decide whether the IRA is or is not a terrorist group. That it is widely alleged to be so should be included here, that it may disagree with that designation should be included here. The evidence for and against the designation should be included here. The same with the bombing of Guernica: it is widely considered an act of terrorism. You and I aren't supposed to decide whether or not such widely held opinion is right or wrong. We're supposed to be inclusive, and include the Guernica bombing here along with the fact that some do not consider it an act of terror. This makes our job easier, doesn't it?Haberstr (talk) 04:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Guernica is not consider an act of terrorism, not widely, not at all given that the possibility of it isn't even mention in its own article, if we included everything that even possibly fills that broad criteria, then every war would be included, every non democratic state, the plagues of egypt all the way back to when ugh hit ogg with a rock. this is how that section of definition opens "91. It is time to set aside debates on so-called “State terrorism”. The use of force by States is already thoroughly regulated under international law" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.180.58 (talk) 22:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Googling 'terror' and 'Guernica' I get 126,000 hits. Using a wikipedia article as the foundation of your 'widely' held contention is a bit silly, don't you think? I changed the Guernica entry, by the way, so it includes the widely held notion that that event was one of the first examples of terror bombing.Haberstr (talk) 17:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

So your editing articles across wikipedia to promote your POV, this is an article about terrorism not terror, and it just doesnt fit, if you included that you have to include roman decimations, the sacking of cities by medieval armies, the Mongol invasions. It maybe a war crime but it is not terrorism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.182.69 (talk) 00:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm recognizing reality, as does the wikipedia terror bombing section, where Guernica figures prominently.Haberstr (talk) 21:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree, I did a google and guernica and terrorism brings far fewer results and none of the ones i sampled had any connection with guernica being terrorism example: http://www.guernicamag.com/features/916/wholl_stop_the_rain/ and None of them were academic sources. haberstr you seem to be confusing Terrorism with Terror bombing other than the claimed use of fear niether shares much in common, you could similar argue that totalitarian regimes are terrorist since they use fear to intimidate and repress people, Certainly a secret police force would have far more in common with terrorists than hundreds of airplanes flown by uniformed soldiers. Terrorism is irregularly asymmetrical warfare, often used to for a political aim against a De facto government Sherzo (talk) 01:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I still get 126,000 hits. The point is not to make up your own POV definition. There is disagreement on this issue of whether state actors can commit terrorism, with RS on both sides of the issue. Our job is NPOV; i.e., we're supposed to recognize that disagreement and not resolve it and censor accordingly.Haberstr (talk) 21:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

your the only one making a POV definition or pushing any POV at ALL!, as for you're getting are you sure your using google? and you've yet to provide any academic RS sources, if ever action that included terror was included you go back past the mongols the crusades the hun to when Ugh first threaten Ogg with a rock, that is why terror doesn't equate terrorism Sherzo (talk) 01:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The vast majority of the groups are nationalist/anti-colonial even by their enemies' definitions. It would be best, after the proto-terrorism section, to go with a straight chronological approach.Haberstr (talk) 21:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.180.193 (talk) 01:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

are the sub groups of the PLO really warrant separate sections? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.180.193 (talk) 01:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Could probably do we a few more Images at this point —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.180.193 (talk) 01:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

This page seems to be a mix of "a history of terrorist acts" and "a history of terrorist groups." There's a lot of great material in here, but I think it would be a lot easier to follow if we make a separate page as "History of Terrorist Groups."

Sorry the major overhaul yesterday without checking with folks--I got a little carried away! Mcenroeucsb (talk) 05:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Certain groups have lead to the development of terrorism, such as Michael Collins tactics and cause acting as inspiration for later groups like the Irgun, or the SOE which development weapons and tactics that have become the foundations of modern terrorism, or groups/events that have had a major effect on history causing social change etc, like the Black Hand in serbia, i do think we need a discussion on preening some sub sections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.181.18 (talk) 03:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The section here is absurd. Destroying the nazi rail and communications network is not an example of terrorism under the definition being used for this entry. Terrorism must involve violence toward civilians for the purpose of terrorizing them according to that definition. The bombings of Guernica and Dresden, on the other hand, are arguably strong candidates for incidents of terrorism, but there are countless examples provided by Nazi behavior.Haberstr (talk) 03:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Dresden is not an act of terrorism even by your definition, since it wasnt targeting civilians but the germany army that used the city as a major communication and transport nexus for its war on the eastern front, and the goal was to to deny the germans the use of it as such, not terrorised civilians whom the allies had advised to leave the cities. This appears to be a POV push on your part. Who counts as a civilian? many civilians were killed because they were considered collaborators or just happened to be in the wrong the place at the wrong time, such as the norwegian civilians who died when the SOE blew up the ferry they were on. The various resistance groups and the SOE acted in the exact way terrorists do today, SOE invented many of the tactics and technology still used today by terrorists like Plastic explosives, that is why its included because that a contribution to the development of terrorism. So its the style of tactics, as I not getting caught up on semantics, Dresden wasnt terrorism nor did it contibute to the development of terrorism, as no terrorist group uses area affect aerial bomning, it a military tactic of an air force not terrorists. Whereas the SOE and resistance groups terrorised the legal governments of european nations, operating in cells, using assassination, bombing and sabotage in attempt to force out those governments, it is an encyclopedia's place to merely present these facts and allow the reader to make up their mind about the right or wrong.

I think perhaps your problem is you approach the term terrorism with a negative connotation whereas you must try and be neutral, this could equally be called the history of freedom fighters its just all a matter of perspective and we cant allow ours bias to get in the way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.181.208 (talk) 03:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia encyclopedia entries should be open to the possibility that the bombing of Dresden and Guernica were acts of terror. Of course both sides of the issue should be presented, that's how you construct NPOV encyclopedia articles. You seem to come at the matter from a different angle, that we over here on the discussion page are supposed to choose to publish one side of this long-standing debate, with respected and intelligent people on both sides, and censor out the other side.Haberstr (talk) 20:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Not really, as everything would become wikiality, not a relation of relevate fact, thats why the page on evolution doesn't talk about creationism. I just checked the Dresden and Guernica article and niether one once mention the possibility of it being terrorism, so other than your that your POV push, but then he's a quote that might be apt "The main reason a person would look up this incident is to learn the details of what is widely understood as one of the first examples of terror bombing. Whether this is precisely true and detailing that are important also" similiarly the main reason some someone would look up an article on the history of terrorism is to see events/groups that match modern terrorism and the development of modern terrorism.

You're equating creationism with the position that the bombing of Guernica was a terrorist act? One a widely held and widely disputed position among historians, one quack science. Again, I'm pushing for a NPOV entry on Guernica, one that provides both sides of this debate. Frankly, leaving Guernica out of a history of terrorism encyclopedia entry is simply absurd, and really pretty offensive as well.Haberstr (talk) 17:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

your pushing a POV for a section that doesn't belong here, putting it in is frankly absurd, it maybe a war crime, but it has no relationship to terrorism as it is commonly understood. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.181.2 (talk) 00:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Creationism is a much more widely held belief particularly if we use your ghits justification, so Guernica being terrorism is far more of a "Quack" theory than Creationism. Sherzo (talk) 01:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Guernica was terrorism, that's obvious from the reliable sources used in the creation of that subsection. I have no problem respecting and implementing the 2005 UN definition and including events that fall within its parameters, when reliable specifically describe those acts as terror. What OR definition of terrorism are you using?Haberstr (talk) 16:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

oh good since that definition clearly excludes actions taken by regular soldiers, so that definition excludes terror bombing.

No it doesn't.Haberstr (talk) 19:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes it does, it clearly states that the actions of military or the police etc are already regulated as war crimes and crimes against humanity, perhaps you should try reading the definition. Sherzo (talk) 08:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I have, and I've explained my perspective repeatedly already. Please assume good faith.Haberstr (talk) 19:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

This section makes no mention of why the group were terrorists, so it needs to be rewritten to match the other sections, also it might just be folded into the cold war proxy section as at present it feels a bit pov. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.181.208 (talk) 03:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The section directly mentions the acts of terror allegedly committed by the Contras. I don't see what you're getting at, what more would you like than the following:

The report was soon published as a book, Contra Terror in Nicaragua (Brody, 1985). It charged that the Contras attacked purely civilian targets and that their tactics included murder, rape, beatings, kidnapping and disruption of harvests.

The contras were widely alleged to have committed many acts of terror, thereby qualifying them as a terrorist group in this article.Haberstr (talk) 20:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

That their opponents considered them terrorists means nothing. Nor does it matter whether or not the acts they committed meet someone's definition of terrorism. What's needed is a citation from a recognized specialist, for example someone who has written a mainstream book on the subject of terrorism. Otherwise it is OR. Kauffner (talk) 04:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Two mainstream human rights organizations are cited in the entry. That being the case, it's OR to remove the entry on your own sense that the Contras were not a terrorist group. I think the entry is a good model for how many of the entries here should look, in that it includes both sides of the argument over whether the group is/was a terrorist group. The real mainstream position on whether the Contras were a terrorist group is diversity of opinion, disagreement and 'not sure'.Haberstr (talk) 17:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Its far from a good model, try reading Mcenroeucsb additions for good example.

We now have a longer section on the Contras than any other group in all of history, a clear example of WP:UNDUE. Neither Terrorism in Context‎ by Martha Crenshaw nor A History of Terrorism (2001) by Walter Laqueur even mention them. The pull quote -- in which Sandinista propaganda is uncritically repeated -- is an NPOV travesty. I suggest cutting the section and adding the Contras to the Cold War proxies section. Kauffner (talk) 07:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I edited out that statement and reduced the size of the entry so it is more in line with norms here.Haberstr (talk) 21:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree they'd fit better in the cold war proxies section

Guy Fawkes and his crew were terrorists? No. Think about the 2005 definition: the purpose of the plot was not to intimidate or terrorize the civilian population (through violence or threat of violence) to do or not do something. The concept was to blow up parliament, the seat of power, and then that leading to taking over power. Shouldn't terror have to do with terrorizing civilians? I think so, since that's the definition we're working under.Haberstr (talk) 07:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Blowing up the government doesnt intimidate the people? I'm pretty sure it terrorises those being blown up, it also fulfill this part "compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act.". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.180.143 (talk) 18:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Haberstr: acts of terrorism, by definition, seek to enact indirect change. You kill a bunch of civilians to try to provoke a polarizing police reaction, or you destroy a building that's a symbol of the enemy's strength. The Gunpowder plot, in contrast, sought to enact *direct* change by killing the leaders that Guy Fawkes disagreed with (as I understand it). Assassinations may well scare "those being blown up," but if everything that terrorizes people is considered terrorism, then all wars, bank robberies, and Halloween costumes will have to be fit into the article too, which is a pain.Mcenroeucsb (talk) 20:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

It was an attempt to enact political change through covert use of violence, it is clearly comparable to terrorism and has been included in academic works as such. Its section is well sourced unlike any of your recent additions mcenroeucab, any idea when you'll be sourcing them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.180.58 (talk) 23:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I assume you're joking, because the only citation in the Gunpowerer Gunpowder Plot section says--in its entirety--"V for Vendetta." That is not what I would call "well sourced." On the other hand, half of the additions I put in have inline citations to either books specifically on that group or to published histories of terrorism. It's fair to say that the other half of my additions are not well sourced--I'll give you that. I'm working on it and it takes time.Mcenroeucsb (talk) 03:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

For Wiki editors to define terrorism and decide whether a certain act is terrorist or not -- this is OR. Literature by specialists needs to be cited. BTW, the Gunpowder plot was an assassination attempt on the king. Parliament was just where he happened to be speaking. Kauffner (talk) 04:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and think OR is the heart and soul of the entire 'history of terrorism' entry. We decide, on our own, that the UN 2005 definition is 'the' definition and then proceed to allow or not allow in groups and events based on that decision. (That's what the discussion of the Gunpoweder Plot revolves around.) I'm not sure what the alternative is. Of course, the opening, definitional section should be more inclusive of the wide range of opinion on what 'terrorism' means, including the point of view that the word is impossible to define, and much of that could be taken from the wikipedia terrorism entry.Haberstr (talk) 17:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The opening, definitional section that used to be there, that is. I don't have a problem with it being removed, though that does make it harder to have some sort of touchstone for what should be allowed in and left out of this history.Haberstr (talk) 22:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

the only promoting OR is you in your POV pushes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.181.2 (talk) 00:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Is it not self-evidently absurd to impose a 2005 UN definition on something that happened in 1605? Google books has material on the history of terrorism by Walter Laqueur, Martha Crenshaw, and others. These books should be used determine which events and groups get included in the article. For example, we can justify including the Gunpowder plot by citing Chris R. Kyle, who writes about it in Terror (2009), pp. 42-55. Kauffner (talk) 03:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we should use histories of terrorism (by experts such as Walter Laqueur) to determine which events and groups are included. Mcenroeucsb (talk) 04:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Terror (I quote) "takes a detailed look at terror in the context of the Gunpowder Plot of 1605." Note it doesn't take a look at "terrorism" in the context of the Gunpowder Plot. So, if you are allowing entries about instances of "terror" and not just about terrorism (if our 'official' POV is that they are distinguishable), then we should be allowed to have entries on Nazi terror, Stalin's reign of terror, and so on. Also, there is no independent 'history of terror' to put this sort of material, and it conforms to the 20th century and earlier definitions of terrorism.Haberstr (talk) 23:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The image File:PA103cockpit4.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --18:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

This article has increased in quality amazingly, Mcenroeucsb and Anon you've done fantastic work, Its an excellent article. Sherzo (talk) 07:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!Mcenroeucsb (talk) 21:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

This is not a good idea. It's nearly always POV and OR, a choosing and thematizing by the wikipedia author from the diversity and jumble of a particular time period. Also, whatever the characterization is is riddled with exceptions, and there's a temptation (we don't need) to exclude or downplay the facts, groups, and events that contradict the 'theme'.Haberstr (talk) 22:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the subsection headings which characterize are a mistake (i.e. "The 1980s and religious terror"). I'll remove those now. However, I think it's a good idea to keep the sentence or paragraph at the beginning of each decade/century which overviews which groups were prominent, as I think this helps the reader identify trends. Mcenroeucsb (talk) 04:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

We have to be very careful about OR trend creation. If there is wide expert consensus of such trends, fine, but you need sources.Haberstr (talk) 16:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I think a general overview is a helpful addition, particularly if it's only summarising the content of that section

In the cold war proxies subsection, Viet Cong is mentioned. I have no idea why apparently someone thinks the Viet Cong was a terrorist group. They're referred to as an army in the Viet Cong wikipedia entry.Haberstr (talk) 22:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes the academic source cited does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.182.69 (talk) 00:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

What academic source? Stanley Karnow? Who writes about Vietnam from the most biased viewpoint available? For example he describes the death of a peasant who informed on the Viet Cong as "murdered by Vietcong terrorists in the Mekong delta", hardly an unbiased way of describing the death of a spy is it? O Fenian (talk) 02:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Karnow is a liberal MSM anti-war Democrat. See here. He even gets an endorsement from Chomsky: "Stanley Karnow, who is also considered dovish and critical."[1]. As far as sources on Vietcong terrorism go, there is The Viet Cong Strategy of Terror (1970) by Douglas Pike and Terror in Viet Nam (1966) by J. Mallin. Kauffner (talk) 06:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Being anti-war doesn't mean his viewpoint on the Viet Cong is neutral. A more neutral academic source would be better surely? O Fenian (talk) 16:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

isn't describing him as a spy equaling POV?Sherzo (talk) 16:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Informers and spies have been shot during warfare throughout history, I'd say calling those who do the shooting murdering terrorists is equally POV. O Fenian (talk) 16:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The premise of the section -- "Many of the resistance groups of World War II would go to become nationalist terrorist groups." -- seems inaccurate. Many of the resistance groups went on to become anti-colonial militias and armies, certainly. Terrorism was practiced by some, a few, of such groups? Some proof is needed, however, for each claim, and a blanket "many" claim seems 'off'.Haberstr (talk) 00:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be pushing a POV across multiple articles Sherzo (talk) 01:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

That's your POV, please assume good faith unless you have evidence otherwise. I'm pushing common sense, balance and objectivity. In the case of this article, under a fairly widely accepted 2005 UN definition (UN POV?) World War II terror bombing is a kind of terrorism. I will restore it. Nazi terrorism (except for their terror bombing) is so far disappeared from this history of terrorism, so I will also attempt to rectify that.Haberstr (talk) 16:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

He seems to confuse war crimes and crimes against humanity, which is what militaries, like Air Forces, do, with terrorism, and it clearly a POV push on his part.

I know what the 2004 UN definition of terrorism is, and that a substantial body of opinion believes terrorist acts and tactics were widespread during World War II. I'm happy to see both sides of that debate (if your side has RS), but not to have the RS-supported position on my side deleted. Yes, acts of terror during wartime are crimes against humanity are war crimes.Haberstr (talk) 20:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

there are no sides there is you pushing a POV, and you have yet to provide a reliable source calling Guernica terrorism

I've provided 5 or 6. Where is your 5 or 6 RS saying it wasn't a terrorist act?Haberstr (talk) 06:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

You havent provided any sources saying its was terrorism only that it was terror bombing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.181.157 (talk) 22:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I see my tags have been removed, without the section being fixed. The problems with it are:

• No actual history of the IRA (and there are many) claims they were inspired by the Carbonari takeover of an Italian town
• Ranelagh does not state the IRA's leaders were inspired by the Carbonari, he says "Unlike Meagher and Mitchel, Stephens had avoided arrest in 1848 and fled to France where he learnt about the Carbonari, a Franco-Italian secret society dedicated to revolutionary activity". The James Stephens referred to is James Stephens (Fenian), who died before the IRA was formed, and the source says nothing about town takeovers or anyone being inspired by them either.
• Billington does not state the IRA's leaders were inspired by the Carbonari, he says "..the Irish Republican Brotherhood [not the IRA] (called Fenians by the pre-Christian warriors), which was largely modeled on the rival Carbonari model of republican conspiracy". So it was the IRB not the IRA, and nothing about being inspired by town takeovers.
• You cannot hijack a building. The IRA did not "hijack" buildings anyway. Chaliand is talking about the Easter Rising (see below for further explanation), when the Irish Volunteers occupied buildings. This did not generally happen during the Irish War of Independence, which is the IRA's recognised campaign.
• Chaliand does not state the IRA bombed police stations, please read the source
• The IRA did not draw "inspiration from the Irish Republican Brotherhood", it was controlled by the Irish Republican Brotherhood
• Chaliand does not state the IRA took part in the Easter Rising. What he states is "the members of several independence movements". The Irish Volunteers were the major participants in the Easter Rising, who later became the IRA. The term Irish Republican Army was briefly used during the Rising, but the Irish Volunteers remained so until 1919, when the term IRA gradually replaced it.
• O'Connor does not state Dáil Éireann recognised the IRA as its legitimate army in 1919, the cited passage (which is on page 133 of my copy) states the the Dáil recognises that the people who took part in the Easter Rising did so on behalf of the Irish people, that is not the same thing. This interpretation of a quote is one contradicted by other sources. "The IRA" by Tim Pat Coogan (ISBN 0-00-653155-5) says "Throughout the course of the Anglo-Irish War the Volunters and the Sinn Féin party pursued separate though complementary courses of action" (page 24), "During all of this period the question of the Dáil's control of the Volunteers remained one of some doubt and even controversy...Collins rejected the idea of trying to run an army under a civilian council. (Michael Collins was president of the IRB, the Dáil's minister for finance, the Volunteers' director of intelligence and adjutant-general) The clearest statement of the position, which de Valera felt free to make a few months after the setting up of the Dáil, was a statement to the Dáil on 10 April that the 'Minister for Defence is of course in close assocation with the Voluntary military forces which are the foundation of the National Army' - 'in close association with' only, not 'in control of'." (pages 24-25), "Brugha, who disliked and mistrusted Collins, tried again on 20 August when he proposed to the Dáil that the Volunteers and Dáil deputies alike should take an oath 'to support and defend the Irish Republic and the Government of the Irish Republic, which is Dáil Éireann against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same'...However under pressure of the military situation the Volunteers never made a similar formal acceptance of the oath" (page 25), and "It was not until March 1921, only a few months before the truce which ended the Anglo-Irish hostilities, that the Dáil agreed with de Valera that the Dáil should take public responsibility for the Volunteers' military actions, and formally accept the fact that a state of war existed" (page 25). "Armed Struggle: The History of the IRA" by Richard English (ISBN 0-330-49388-4) says "The IRA long retained an ambivalent attitude towards the Dáil, and not until August 1919 was a serious effort made to bring the Volunteers under its control. The Volunteer Executive then agreed that their soldiers had to take an oath of allegiance to the Dublin Dáil, but the military and political wings of the movement continued substantially separate lives. It was not until the spring of 1921 - by which time the War of Independence was almost over - that the Dáil agreed that it should publicly accept responsibility for the IRA's actions" (page 24)
• It is misleading to present the events of 1916 and those of 1919 to 1921 as one and the same. 1916 was not carried out by the IRA as such, and following it there was a lull of little to no activity until 1919. The Easter Rising and War of Independence are seen as separate things, not ones that should be conveniently lumped together.

I am adding the tags back, that section is not in any way accurate. O Fenian (talk) 12:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Alright--let's figure this out!

• It is misleading to present the events of 1916 and those of 1919 to 1921 as one and the same. 1916 was not carried out by the IRA as such, and following it there was a lull of little to no activity until 1919. The Easter Rising and War of Independence are seen as separate things, not ones that should be conveniently lumped together.

To address this problem, I think the IRA section should be completely rewritten and I think it would be best split into two sections, with the first section on the Irish Volunteers and their Easter Rising (1916) and the second section on the IRA and Bloody Sunday etc (1919-1921). Sound good?Mcenroeucsb (talk) 13:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the events should be split. For example the sentence "Led by Michael Collins, the group hijacked buildings, assassinated police, and bombed police stations" (while not strictly accurate) is talking about both the events of the Easter Rising and the War of Independence. The rebels "hijacked" buildings during the Easter Rising, but in largely a traditional military sense. They wore uniforms, and took up defensive military positions against the British Army. They were not led by Collins at this time, he was a minor figure. Then in 1919 the War of Independence began. This was largely a guerrilla campaign, uniforms being discarded in favour of a "man in trenchcoat" system. O Fenian (talk) 13:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

If you restore the original division between the IRA and its precursors that solve the problem or relabel it Irish nationalism, and clearly indicate to which group statements are refering. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.183.200 (talk) 13:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

After giving it more thought and reading the source, I am unclear about if and how the Easter Rising should be incorporated into this article. While the source does mention it, it is more to set the stall for discussing the War of Independence, where it says "Terror was used on both sides". The source makes no such comment about the Rising. O Fenian (talk) 13:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I never included it originally since it seemed to be a military style uprising of the mold common in the preceding centuries, and I've never read a source that claimed it was, What might be of note is the fact its failure can be seen as the cause for the paradigm shift in such nationalist campaigns from uprising and rebellions like the american revolution towards asymmetrical warfare that we associate with terrorism. Sherzo (talk) 15:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with that. It is worth mentioning in the context that it influenced Collins to take a different direction with the IRA. O Fenian (talk)

I think thats a good point particularly since collins tactics were so influential with later groups like the Irgun, so it was essentially a turning point in how liberation/nationalist movements operated.

United Nations definition: any act intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to a civilian, or to any other person not taking an active part in the hostilities in a situation of armed conflict, when the purpose of such act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act. Article 2(b) of International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, May 5, 2004)

If people want to include events clearly outside those parameters, I don't have a huge problem with that as long as RS describes such as terrorist events. I do have a problem with UN definition acts of terror, described by RS as acts of terror, being excluded from this 'History of terrorism' entry. Prominent among them is, of course, World War II terror as practiced, most infamously, by the Nazis. And, of course, terror bombing. Let's practice inclusivity, when there are RS (and common sense in the case of WWII and the Nazis) backing that up, for this controversial entry.Haberstr (talk) 16:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

First the UN has no definition certain reports have used or suggest definitions the UN has never accepted them. second the full definition goes as followed

91. It is time to set aside debates on so-called “State terrorism”. The use of force by States is already thoroughly regulated under international law. And the right to resist occupation must be understood in its true meaning. It cannot include the right to deliberately kill or maim civilians. I endorse fully the High-level Panel's call for a definition of terrorism, which would make it clear that, in addition to actions already proscribed by existing conventions, any action constitutes terrorism if it is intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a Government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act.

I'm not debating "so-called" state terrorism, but calling it "so-called" may indicate your position. Debating that very live issue is not our role. It is an issue with two sides and both sides are RS. We should act accordingly.Haberstr (talk) 21:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

the so called its mine its the UN's from thats the full text of the definition you want to use

third you do realise there is already a separate article on terror bombing and none of the sources i checked refered to guernica as bombing in fact you misquote some source the BBC article says 200 to 250 not 200 to 300, and answers.com isn't a reliable source.

There are separate articles for nearly all the sub-categories in the history of terrorism article.Haberstr (talk) 21:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I have a substantial problem with an editor deciding that a particular incident fits the UN definition. That is synthesis. You are taking a definition, taking an incident, and drawing your own conclusion that it was a terrorist incident. Non-fringe reliable sources that have drawn the conclusion are needed. O Fenian (talk) 18:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I have an issue with editors defying substantial RS stating directly that Guernica was an incident of terror bombing. This means for those RS that it was an intentional attack on civilian targets in order to induce terror and/or damage enemy morale. It is obvious POV to take as your right to censor out substantial RS, likely consensus reliable source, opinion on this matter. I'd be happy to see the other side of the controversy represented, that Guernica was not terror bombing. That's the inclusivity we need for such a disputed and controversial topic.Haberstr (talk) 20:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe the answer I'm receiving is, "Yes, let's (at least) include acts that fit the 2004 'UN' definition of terrorism."Haberstr (talk) 21:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

No. The answer you're getting, at least from me, is "Let's not include every act of violence that ever happened." While not all definitions of terrorism emphasize that it is a non-state phenomenon, most do. So while I have no problem with having reasonably sized sections about, say, terror bombing, the section you've added is not an abridged paragraph (like the other sections of this article) but a large scale copy and paste job.
Mcenroeucsb (talk) 21:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree about the quote, but disagree about truncating all the terror of WWII into one paragraph. These were major world events. Guernica, Dresden, Rotterdam, the terror bombing of China, the fire-bombing of Japan should each get one paragraph. A paragraph or two should be added about Nazi and Axis terror, especially considering there is already a paragraph about allied resistance groups' 'terror'. Looking at the big picture, most of the sub-sections in 'history of terrorism' are too short to be of any real use and should be at least a little bit longer.Haberstr (talk) 22:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

No one is saying yes are you really that blinkered to your bias?, you may well have sources saying Guernica was terror bombing, and answer.com isn't, thats why its included in the Terror bombing article, not the terrorism article which you have yet to provide any source saying its TERRORISM. but the definition you want to use specifically EXCLUDES actions taken by regular armed forces.

I've added 3 or 4 more RS (to the two already provided) saying Guernica was terror.Haberstr (talk) 22:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

But its not terrorism, thats why it belong on the Terror bombing page, the planes were flown by regular military, If you use the term terror as a defining criteria then, the Spanish Inquisitions most totalitarian regimes, and even police forces have to be included. Sherzo (talk) 00:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

It was state terrorism. 'State terrorism' is a disputed term, but many RS feel it is one form of terrorism.Haberstr (talk) 06:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

yet the definition you wanted to use clearly states that so called state terrorism shouldn't be included as those are war crimes.

No it doesn't.Haberstr (talk) 15:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

91. It is time to set aside debates on so-called “State terrorism”. The use of force by States is already thoroughly regulated under international law. And the right to resist occupation must be understood in its true meaning. It cannot include the right to deliberately kill or maim civilians. I endorse fully the High-level Panel's call for a definition of terrorism, which would make it clear that, in addition to actions already proscribed by existing conventions, any action constitutes terrorism if it is intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a Government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act. that is the full text of the definition you want to use, which clearly precludes the actions of uniformed personal.

Kofi Annan agrees with me ("any action constitutes terrorism if it is intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a Government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act.") not you, as far as I can tell, but that was not the 2004 UN effort at a definition. I think this is a quote from Kofi Annan.Haberstr (talk) 23:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

No Kofi annan doesnt, (even if he did he doesn't define what the UN says only the General Assembly can do that) "Kofi Annan, at the time United Nations Secretary-General, has said that it is "time to set aside debates on so-called 'state terrorism'. The use of force by states is already thoroughly regulated under international law" you really should stop making things up, do i need to post the full text yet again? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.181.103 (talk) 11:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

He has said it is "time to set aside debates on so-called 'state terrorism'." This has nothing to do with, as you believe, declaring state terrorism is not terrorism. What he said shows that he feels the state terrorism debate is hopelessly muddled and unproductive, since such acts are already covered by war crime and crimes against humanity 'international law'. That means he sides with me, I agree with Annan and the overwhelming RS that whether state terrorism is terrorism is a hopelessly muddled debate (in fact the definition of terrorism itself is also hopelessly muddled according to the overwhelming RS authority). You, on the other hand think the debate about 'state terrorism' and the definition of 'terrorism' are not muddled at all and you're POV ignoring the overwhelming RS that disagrees with you.Haberstr (talk) 15:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Again a POV reading he's stating those are war crimes or crimes against humanity and are already regulated by international law, and the majority of RS doesnt include state terror as terrorism thats why you've failed to find any RS sources for it, the way you deliberating misread sources quote and context and general obfuscate to muddy the waters is worthy of a politician Sherzo (talk) 01:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

He's saying let's set aside that dispute/issue and move on to more productive action/topics. The language is clear.Haberstr (talk) 23:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

so called would indicate he doesn't support the name, he then goes one to show that these so called acts are already covered by war crimes etc regulation as such you are entirely wrong in your reading and i fear deliberately so Sherzo (talk) 04:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

"Set aside" means "set aside."Haberstr (talk) 05:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Well done Sherzo (talk) 06:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Uhh... Innocent until proven guilty maybes? There doesn't really seem to be any consensus here (as you've said) - Kingpin13 (talk) 18:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

While most people would agree that the mass bombings during World War II were heinous acts, we are substantially lacking in non-fringe sources that describe them as terrorist acts. O Fenian (talk) 18:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

This much content shouldn't be removed. Maybe it needs a rewrite, but there's to much here to just remove it. - Kingpin13 (talk) 18:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

So if I personally decide [insert name of country here] has committed terrorist acts against [insert names of victims] during a war, write up the facts as they are known, providing there's lots of facts you'd have no problem with it being in a "history of terrorism"? The volume of content is not relevant, but whether it is classed as terrorism in the first place is. O Fenian (talk) 18:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

precisely, its a POV push to muddy the waters, particularly when terror bombing and is a heavily disputed subject academically.

Well who says what's terrorism and what isn't? Google ( ;) ) tells me it's "the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or...". - Kingpin13 (talk) 18:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's an example of what I'm dealing with: O Fenian rejected the following RS as inadequate support for the contention that bombing of Guernica was an act of terror: The legacy of Guernica BBC April 26, 2007; Shroud over Guernica Sydney Morning Herald February 5, 2003; bombing of Guernica; Guernica, 70 Years Later CBC April 26, 2007 "The goal here was concentrated terror through the systematic and wide-scale bombing and burning of civilians, as many civilians as possible."; Guernica PBS "air-delivered terror"; and the author Anthony Beevor:Guernica -- III Quoted: The Battle for Spain: The Spanish Civil War, 1936-1939 (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 2006), p. 233.Haberstr (talk) 04:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

None of the sources you put on the section claim it was terrorism. Terror doesnt equal Terrorism. Sherzo (talk) 05:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Non-fringe reliable sources? The way we usually decide.. O Fenian (talk) 19:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

IF you take that opinion, then siege warfare, the spanish inquistion, and roman decimation would all be included as would many more, a little common sense is required.

Are you saying all the refs that have been removed are unreliable? - Kingpin13 (talk) 19:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

None of the refs call it terrorism, and several of them are to unreliable sites like answers.com

Having a reference, which more often than not does not call a particular incident "terrorism" is not necessarily the point, please see WP:FRINGE. I can find you half a dozen references that the Earth is flat, man have never landed on the moon and so on. O Fenian (talk) 19:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Well if none of them classify it as terrorism then I'll agree with you :D - Kingpin13 (talk) 19:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

There's also WP:WEIGHT problems. Approximately 1/8 of the article was about these particular acts of what may be classed as terror bombing, which some people may consider "terrorist acts" or "war crimes". Whereas Al-Qaeda, who are almost universally classed as a terrorist organisation get a measly two paragraphs?! When you consider the lengthy history of terrorism, 1/8 of the article covering incidents that are not generally classed as terrorism is a bit dubious. O Fenian (talk) 19:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

And in fact no information has been "lost", compare this with this. The addition was a copy and paste from terror bombing with a few token amendments! O Fenian (talk) 19:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

1. What fringe sources? If you consider answers.com fringe then remove it and use just the BBC, which I assume you do not consider a fringe source. The sources that consider the bombing of Guernica an act of terror are vast and mainstream. Haberstr (talk) 21:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC) 2. I've substantially reduced the size of the subsection.Haberstr (talk) 21:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Although I believe I'm being unfairly overburdened compared to writers of other copy for this article, I've added a large number of RS to the Guernica section of the WWII terrorism section. Are you now comfortable that the notion that Guernica was an incidence of terror is not based on 'fringe sources'?Haberstr (talk) 22:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

It needs to be an act of terrorism, not terror, it was military operation thus it could be consider a war crime but not terrorismSherzo (talk) 00:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

It was an act of terrorism; you apparently don't understand that terrorism is a term that large groups of RS dispute the definition of. Many believe the term can be attached to state actions during wartime. As a good encyclopedia writer, you should not consider yourself the decider of that controversy. Please recognize this is a matter about which people of good faith and good credential on both sides are in dispute.Haberstr (talk) 06:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Not according to the sources, keep your bias out of this article please. O Fenian (talk) 11:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The sources explicitly say these were acts of terror; keep your bias out of this article please.Haberstr (talk) 17:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

"terror" does not equal "terrorism", troll. O Fenian (talk) 18:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The word terrorism originates with the practices of the state of France during its 'Reign of Terror'. RS disagree whether the original meaning still is in common usage, but a history should recognize the uses of the term as it has evolved. That's exactly what the whole 'roots' of terrorism section is about, for example.Haberstr (talk) 22:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

What academica RS exactly? it does recognise it hence the inclusion of the reign of terror. drawing to then claim any war crime you carry a penchant for should be included by extension is a very weak argumentSherzo (talk) 05:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

By the way, there is no 'history of terror' entry (other than this one), so removing terrorism subsections that are based on the original definition is disappearing information.Haberstr (talk) 22:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

And? if you feel all actions that involve terror should have an article(it'll be a bloody long one though, including all wars, police actions and repressions by the state and crime) then write it, trying to shoe horn in subjects were they clearly don't belong isn't the answers. Also deleting information not appropriate to the articele isn't disappearing anything its called keeping it on focus.

You are much more certain about what terrorism is than any of the RS authorities. Where there is RS dispute, we should be inclusive and NPOV. This history of terrorism entry is where terrorism as practiced by Stalin and Hitler, in the 'tradition' of the Reign of Terror, should obviously be.Haberstr (talk) 23:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Can i ask why are you so adamant yo include them here, yet not do as suggested and create a history of terror article? I've yet to see any of these reliable academic sources that claim there terrorism akin to what the IRA or Al Quaeda 05:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

your argument about basing on, so called "the original definition" (i guess you've abandoned the UN one now?) is a poor one since the only reason its on here is that it has a direct link to the evolution of terrorism, it be like basing the origin of the species on creationism, or any number of english words that evolved over the years, form meaning one thing to another. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.182.11 (talk) 23:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I like what is being called the 2004 UN definition: "any action constitutes terrorism if it is intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a Government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act." I believe that is a rough summation by Kofi Annan of what a UN body was arriving at in 2004 and not the actual agree text itself.Haberstr (talk) 23:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

What other 'history of terrorism' is there on wikipedia where the history of 'terror' should be placed? The term is obviously and glaringly disputed, as anyone who's read any of the major authorities (try Laqueur) knows. This is just ridiculously POV censorship.Haberstr (talk) 23:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

you mean this UN definition:

91. It is time to set aside debates on so-called “State terrorism”. The use of force by States is already thoroughly regulated under international law. And the right to resist occupation must be understood in its true meaning. It cannot include the right to deliberately kill or maim civilians. I endorse fully the High-level Panel's call for a definition of terrorism, which would make it clear that, in addition to actions already proscribed by existing conventions, any action constitutes terrorism if it is intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a Government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act. The one that opens by excluding so called "state terrorism"? there is no agreed upon text by the UN that was one report. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.182.11 (talk) 23:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I find it interesting that you feel the need to shoehorn in things like guernica or the blitz of british cities here, yet not on the article where they actually belong List of war crimes which currently makes no mention of those alleged crimes at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.182.11 (talk) 23:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I am starting to think this is an agenda to back Haberstr personal believes, since he feels no need to add guernica to the war crimes article. Sherzo (talk) 05:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's an example of non-assumption of good faith: "I am starting to think this is an agenda to back Sherzo personal believes, since he/she feels no need to add guernica to the war crimes article."Haberstr (talk) 15:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Faith is only extended before experience is gained, and experience is gained of an editor by their comments and their edits. other wise it's blind faith Sherzo (talk) 01:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I suggest we split the article into "History of non-state terrorism" and "State terrorism." The State terrorism page already exists, so this would only entail changing the title of History of terrorism to "History of non-state terrorism" and pruning it, and then moving the state terrorism sections to the State terrorism page. I think this would make the article shorter and cut down on some of our edit wars. Thoughts? Mcenroeucsb (talk) 19:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

We can cover state terrorism and terror bombing in this article, by having a brief summary of each. What we do not need is a copy and paste of 12K of information from the terror bombing article. O Fenian (talk) 19:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I am editing it down to sub-sections of what is considered 'normal' length here. However, I think all the subsections should be a little longer.Haberstr (talk) 20:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The fact is that there is a RS contention that there is such as thing as state terrorism, but this is also disputed by RS. Why not just be inclusive here? I don't see the justification for splitting an article unless it is too large, so let's all make sure we pare down all subsections to 'small' size?Haberstr (talk) 22:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Terror bombing has it own article, it isn't terrorism and doesn't belong here

It is widely alleged by RS to be one form of terrorism; like almost everything here, it has its own article.Haberstr (talk) 22:22, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

could you please put the specific "widely alleged" reliable sources you're citing here?Sherzo (talk) 00:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Here are the RS I've collected so far who describe the bombing of Guernica as an act of terror: The legacy of Guernica BBC April 26, 2007; Shroud over Guernica Sydney Morning Herald February 5, 2003; bombing of Guernica; Guernica, 70 Years Later CBC April 26, 2007 "The goal here was concentrated terror through the systematic and wide-scale bombing and burning of civilians, as many civilians as possible."; Guernica PBS "air-delivered terror"; and the author Anthony Beevor:Guernica -- III Quoted: The Battle for Spain: The Spanish Civil War, 1936-1939 (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 2006), p. 233. And your sources saying it wasn't a terrorist act?Haberstr (talk) 01:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Lots of opinion pieces by journalists, no academics. And does a single one even say it was a terrorist act? O Fenian (talk) 11:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

You gotta be kidding; almost all the documentation in this history is from RS journalistic sources. No single contention in the entire article has documentation as strong as what you see above. Have you looked at the exceptionally weak documentation and very strong, conclusive claims made in the rest of the history of terrorism article? You really need to change your focus and stop being an OR troll.Haberstr (talk) 20:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Most are far better sourced, and relevantly so you're sources talk about terror bombing which is an entirely different subject.

This subsection needs to be rewritten for balance. It seems a very widespread and supported by much RS viewpoint that it was an act of terrorism. The subsection should state that side in addition to the other side of the argument.Haberstr (talk) 22:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

19th century section is chronologically out of order, apparently to fit the overriding theme of anarchism and so on in the introductory section. I think chronology should override the apparent (POV?) theme decided on for the 19th century. Certainly that introductory section is valuable and good to have, but perhaps some or most of it can go under the 'Anarchism' subsection and an introduction more fitting the diverse reality of the 19th century provided.

I think a little common sense needs to be applied here, the alleged terror bombings of WW2 and they are highly disputed, do not fit with the modern concept of terrorism that this article is about Sherzo (talk) 00:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Can we please be inclusive? This is a controversial subject with a wide range of RS supporting various definitions of terrorism. Many, for example, would regard it as extraordinary if the phrase 'Nazi terror' were not included in this history of terrorism. Not that they're 'right' that Nazi terror is 'terrorism,' but they're not wrong.Haberstr (talk) 01:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The article is inclusive of relevant topics if you include everything that involves terror then the Mafia should be included they really on fear and intimidation, As would all crime, war crimes, and genocides, which all instill terror aren't terrorism.

Not really since most consider, "Nazi terror" to be a war crime or crime against humanity, not Terrorism, and it doesn't really fit with how people understand terrorism which is defined by groups like the IRA and Al Quaeda.Sherzo (talk) 23:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

On this more limited issue, I hope we can have some consensus.Haberstr (talk) 03:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Why exactly isn't?Sherzo (talk) 23:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

As written, because it is military actions, by a militia, against military targets.Haberstr (talk) 22:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

as written where? So was the IRA bombing of economic centers such as manchester not terrorism then? you must learn to leave your personal POV behind Sherzo (talk) 00:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

As written in the history of terrorism entry.Haberstr (talk) 23:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

but how is that different to the other sectionsSherzo (talk) 04:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm pointing out that the barebones assertion that the French resistance "destroyed the Nazi rail and communications network" doesn't make sense as a charge of terrorism, which is what the sentence is. If there's something wrong with the IRA section, bring it up in a separate subsection.Haberstr (talk) 05:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Why doesnt it? The IRA tried to avoid all civilian casualities the SOE did not Sherzo (talk) 06:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Note that I've radically reduced the size of the section. Secondly, I've provided a massive quantity of RS documentation for the notion that the acts described in the section are often, by many scholars, considered terrorist acts. (I note in contrast that many other subsections in the history of terrorism have only one or zero references.) Of course we all should recognize that the notion that there is such a thing as 'state terrorism' is in dispute -- and that is now recognized at the start of the WWII terrorism section -- with numerous RS on both sides of the dispute. For me, the problem is clear: some have chosen as best the definition of terrorism that does not include state terrorism and are attempting to impose that on this history. The problem with that is that it is POV to impose and enforce a particular terrorism definition when it is a matter of widespread scholarly dispute. I will continue to fight for a NPOV on the matter.Haberstr (talk) 06:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Please stop adding this disputed section, it fails WP:OR, WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT. Propose an acceptably sourced, acceptably sized version here first, otherwise it will continue to be removed. O Fenian (talk) 11:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Please stop removing this disputed section, removal fails WP:OR, WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT. Propose an acceptably sourced, acceptably sized version here first, otherwise it will continue to be restored.Haberstr (talk) 17:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Now I know you are nothing but a troll, as does anyone else reading your reply. O Fenian (talk) 18:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Now I know you are nothing but a troll, as does anyone else reading your reply.Haberstr (talk) 18:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

You've been in attack mode from the beginning of my interactions with you. My interactions with you have been nothing but polite until today, but I've insisted that you support your OR position that state terror and/or terror bombing are RS consensus not forms of terrorism. You have never provided evidence for that position, while I can point to the Terrorism section for clear evidence that the term terrorism is a disputed term and many RS find state terror and terrorist actions by states during war time to be forms of terrorism. This 'history of terrorism' should properly refer to state terrorism, going back of course to the French reign of terror and including the exploits of Stalin and Hitler, and so on. At all times the fact that state terror is a disputed and controversial concept should be explicitly acknowledged. I don't expect an answer, at this point, to the substance of this fairly obvious appeal to RS mainstream opinion, and I expect you to continue your campaign for your OR conceptualization of what terrorism is or isn't.Haberstr (talk) 20:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for acceptably sized version:

Some of the most successful terrorist groups were the vast array of guerilla, partisan, and resistance movements that were organised and supplied by the Allies during World War II. The British Special Operations Executive (SOE) conducted operations in every theatre of the war and provided an invaluable contribution to allied victory. On the eve of D-Day it organised with the French resistance the complete destruction of the rail and communication infrastructure of western France perhaps the largest coordinated terrorist attack in history. The SOE effectively invented modern terrorism, pioneering most of the tactics, techniques and technologies that are the mainstays of terrorism we know today.^[1] And while the indiscriminate aerial bombardment of civilians began in World War I,^[2] it was in the Spanish Civil War and World War II that "terror bombing of the civilian population of an enemy in order to break its morale" was most devastatingly put into action.^[3][4]

Mcenroeucsb (talk) 18:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Seems appropriate. O Fenian (talk) 18:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Seems absurd. First of all, there is no reference provided that the resistance groups were terrorist groups. The Channel 4 documentary, which is exceptionally difficult to check, appears to be about 'Churchill's Secret Army' and not the French and various resistance groups. The following, in particular, is nonsense: "...the complete destruction of the rail and communication infrastructure of western France perhaps the largest coordinated terrorist attack in history." The destruction of a rail and communication infrastructure is not a "terrorist action" by any definition offered in the Wikipedia Terrorism entry. Finally, you've radically truncated the section on World War II state terrorism, far beyond anything and WP:WEIGHT. Compare, for example, multiple paragraphs on the PLO/Fatah, whose number of victims must be a 100th or a 1000th the victims of WWII terrorism. And you've explicitly said why you're doing this, because in your WP:OR opinion, it is not 'really' terrorism. This also precludes, by the way, the needed addition of entries on Stalin and Hitler state terrorism.Haberstr (talk) 18:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

"whose number of victims must be a 100th or a 1000th the victims of WWII terrorism"

Allocating space on this page according to body count = bad idea. 4 MILLION people died in the 2nd Congo War, and only 3,000 people died in 9/11. Do you think the 2nd Congo War should have a section 100 1,000 times as large on this page? You asked for a proposal, I gave you one which others agreed with. I am all ears to your proposals for changes to the paragraph, but make it short. This article is way too long already. I'm happy to compromise to make the article shorter: we make the WWII/terror bombing section a paragraph, and we shorten the PLO/PLFP/Fatah/DLFP/PLFP=GC/Munich/Black September/Achille Lauro section to one paragraph. Deal? Let's end this annoying edit war.

Mcenroeucsb (talk) 19:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not proposing such an allocation, I'm only asking that you use common sense. Stalin's 'reign of terror' was one of the major events of the 20th century, for example. There is nothing in history of terrorism on him or it, and I assume inclusion will be fought tooth and nail. Why can't we leave the sections alone? The subsections within the WWII terror sections are already generally smaller than most of the other paragraph-size subsections. Why is everyone so darn ferocious about fighting the obvious here? For example, Fenian has threatened me with blocking my editting privileges because I've reverted his reversions of my contributions.Haberstr (talk) 20:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Because you pushing a POV, and terror bombing isnt terrorism, has no relation or connection to terrorism as it is know today, it has a development connection to such military tactics as shock and awe.

The SOE and resistance groups did try to avoid casualities among those they considered innocent civilians, working for any part of the state however meant they werent innocent, the Provisional IRA had a similiar criteria should they be removed? The resistance groups fall within the common sense defintion of terrorism most people such as i assume everyone here, agreed with their cause.

What common sense definition of terrorism? It's an RS disputed term, so enforcing your common-sense definition is OR. But, minimally, if you look at the wikipedia Terrorism section, pretty much all the definitions involve the killing or threatened killing of civilians, with some level of deliberateness. (Of course we know that the preceding, for most but not all people, is not a sufficient definition of the term.) Resistance groups are typically focused on attacking the occupying army and its operatives. Just to blanket include all resistance groups within the 'terrorist' category is really pretty amazing; it's not common-sensical and it is blatant OR. But if you want to make a POV push in that direction, then at least have some scholarly RS to back up your common sense. At this point we have one TV special, which seems to be about the British efforts to aid resistance groups. (And sign your comments, please.)Haberstr (talk) 20:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

weren't you just arguing for common sense? It has a relation to the development of terrorism and similarities to how its conducted today thats common sense, So you've abandon wanting to use the UN definition now?

Yes I was. So I hope what you mean is that we should remove statements that indicate that resistance and insurgencies are to be considered terrorism. Resistance groups and insurgencies do have a relation to the development of terrorism and many other things, like the development of democracy; I don't get your point. If possible, we shouldn't describe non-terrorist groups and activities as terrorist, so they should be removed from the history of terrorism entry. That's common sense.Haberstr (talk) 23:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I think everyone is "so darn ferocious" because of the way you are inserting things. Most every section of this article is really distilled: we've taken a good deal of time (at least I have) to take a large subject like the IRA or Al-Qaeda or whatever and do some research on our own so we can write a good, short paragraph. You don't seem to have taken any of that time: you came in and dumped a whole heap of material from the terror bombing page and called it a day. And when people got angry that you dumped onto the carefully crafted page, you instantly reverted back your changes without waiting for a discussion consensus. We don't mind you making brief additions--just don't flood the article with five cut and paste paragraphs from another article. Take some time and rewrite it so that it's more concise. We're not trying to silence you: we're just trying to keep you from flooding the article.

Mcenroeucsb (talk) 20:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't call it a day. I returned every few hours with a heavily revised and circumscribed section, following advice given on this discussion page. I maintained a receptive, civil, polite attitude despite rampant rudeness and complete lack of substance in the criticism found here. I tried to politely and with considerable evidence make my side of the argument, but still have never heard a substantive rationale for why state terrorism actions (other than the Reign of Terror) are being removed. "It's not terrorism!" is not substantive.Haberstr (talk) 23:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

First no has been rude to you, and the only person who lacks substances to there arguments I have seen is you. You have been repeatedly rebuffed as the "evidence" you cite doesnt support your claims. The rational its not terrorism is the fact the term state terrorism is high disputed and not general accepted the Reign of Terror section is a remnant from the old Etymology section, and it does have a relationship with terrorism as it is the origin of the terms. Sherzo (talk) 23:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

If we were to include nazi terror or terror bombing, you essentially then have to include all state repression and murder or all wars, thats why war crimes and the like a separate topic they may instill terror but their not terrorist in nature —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.183.163 (talk) 14:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's recognize the legendary and infamous practicioners (c'mon, Hitler and Stalin at least) of state terror and make such sections brief.Haberstr (talk) 15:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

They aren't terrorism, the only act of nazi terrorism i can think of the false flag attack on the reichstag but that is still debated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.183.163 (talk) 18:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Reading assignment: Johnson, Eric. The Nazi Terror – Gestapo, Jews and Ordinary Germans. United States: Basic Books, 1999. But, hey, that title is obviously in violation of the 'official Wikipedia definition'.Haberstr (talk) 19:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

the clue is in the title Nazi Terror, not Nazi Terrorism, all state repression, genocide and war involves terrifying the population that doesnt make it terrorism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.182.11 (talk) 23:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Nazi terror derives directly from the 'Reign of Terror' meaning of the word. This is the place for that history. There is no 'history of terror' and such an entry would be hopelessly confusing to users of this encyclopedia.Haberstr (talk) 23:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It would be no more confusing that what you are arguing this article be transformed into. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.182.11 (talk) 23:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

That's how the Fatah subsection at present reads. No allegations of terrorism against Fatah are made, only against 'factions' of Fatah. I'm guessing the word 'faction' may mean 'group that broke away from and doesn't take orders from Fatah but still has some sort of allegiance to it'? Fatah 'central' exercised real control over these various factions?Haberstr (talk) 06:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but if I recall correctly, no one really knows whether or not Fatah controlled Black September. They were rather secretive about it. Of course, I could be wrong. Mcenroeucsb (talk) 18:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Can the person who put the "The factual accuracy of this section is disputed" banner on the IRA section look at the revised version and see if it's up to snuff? Thanks. Mcenroeucsb (talk) 19:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, meant to remove that earlier. Go ahead and remove it. O Fenian (talk) 19:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you.Mcenroeucsb (talk) 19:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The Bloody Sunday info needs a bit of work, as it's actually known as that also due to the reprisal shootings that took place later that day, see Bloody Sunday (1920), but I will amend that later. O Fenian (talk) 19:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

In the interest of space, groups not widely and RS alleged to have been terrorist should be dropped from this history of terrorism. I first nominate the Hunchakian Revolutionary Party subsection.Haberstr (talk) 21:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. I put that section in, and it is an important link between People's Will (NV) and the Armenian and Macedonian groups that follow it, but in the name of making this article shorter and more manageable, I'm happy to take it out. I'll see if anyone else responds to the contrary: if there are no objections I'll remove the section tomorrow. Mcenroeucsb (talk) 21:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I don't foresee anyone having a problem with my removing it. If they do, we'll cross that bridge when we get to it. I'll take it out now.Mcenroeucsb (talk) 21:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about this particularly group might it might be easier to roll the rise of nationialism in terrorism into one section, in the 19th century.

Similarly to the above, was the terrorism somehow the Easter Uprising, a conventional rebellion (which had nothing to do with attacking or terrorizing civilians)? Or was this put in to bridge to a subsequent IRA or similar section? Another section nominated for removal, to get the size of this "history of terrorism" entry under control.Haberstr (talk) 21:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The Easter Rebellion can be considered terrorism b/c they didn't think that by taking the post office they were going to actually be able to wrench back control of the country. The action was supposed to spark an uprising. Propaganda of the deed. Mcenroeucsb (talk) 21:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how that makes the incident terrorism. As a thought experiment, what definition of terrorism (there are many available in Terrorism) includes 'symbolic acts sparking a general rebellion' as a kind of terrorism?Haberstr (talk) 22:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, Easter Rebellion is mentioned in most histories of terrorism (at least in those that I've skimmed through. Including it in a history of terrorism is a pretty common thing to do for experts of the subject. I don't think we should break from that--also, it's not that long of a section. Mcenroeucsb (talk) 21:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

If that's so, and those experts say it is an example of terrorism, perhaps add a statement that whether it is an example of terrorism is a matter of dispute.Haberstr (talk) 23:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it useful as the sea change it such groups, but it could be trimmed down to just the introduction of the IRA section

This subsection is confusing. If the two groups are the same, or if the second is a faction of the first, that needs to be explained.Haberstr (talk) 22:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The whole of the various Palestinian groups could be rolled into one section Sherzo (talk) 23:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The following comment clued me into what's glaringly wrong with this purported history of terrorism:

. . . As far as sources on Vietcong terrorism go, there is The Viet Cong Strategy of Terror (1970) by Douglas Pike and Terror in Viet Nam (1966) by J. Mallin. Kauffner (talk) 06:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's my comment:

The dueling uses of the word terror are the basic problem with this article. 'The Viet Cong Strategy of Terror' and 'Terror in Viet Nam' book titles refer to the exactly the kinds of acts widely practiced and made infamous by the Nazis during World War II. But this entry on 'History of Terrorism' excludes the Nazis (as it excludes Stalin, and Guernica). However, when the Viet Cong, a guerilla army, are alleged to use similar practices, they get included in this 'History of Terrorism'. I propose, as always, that the varying major contended and non-fringe (by non-fringe, of course I mean concepts recognized widely by RS) meanings of the term be recognized in this entry, and that we take an inclusive approach. Or, let's take an exclusionary approach and remove resistance, guerilla, insurgent and revolutionary militias from this 'History of Terrorism'. Enough POV, one way or the other, people.Haberstr (talk) 15:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

if you removed resistance guerilla insurgent and revolutionaries you'd have an article consisting of the reign of terror since they were the only ones to call themselves terrorists. The viet cong conducted terrorist attacks, blewing up cafes and the like, The viet cong werent the state, like the Nazis or Communists were but were a clandestine group engaged in asymmetrical warfare and you must be truly blinkered with this agenda your pushing not to see the vast differences between the two, since the one sentence that mentions them in the cold war proxies section is sourced, I don't see the problem with it.

The source accuses the Viet Cong of practices associated with the Nazis and Stalin, not with doing things that the late 20th century calls terrorism. You need to find confirmation that the Viet Cong practiced the 'late 20th century definition of terrorism' not the earlier definition. For example, if the Viet Cong in fact blew up cafes, provide a source that says they did that.Haberstr (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

There was the Brinks and Metropole hotel bombings, we could add one of the pictures to that section. Sherzo (talk) 05:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Just add a major 'obviously' terrorist act and then including Viet Cong will be fine as far as I'm concerned.Haberstr (talk) 07:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The Vietcong's bombing of the My Canh floating restaurant in 1965 in Saigon killed 48. Seems a straightforward example of terrorism to me. But I must stress again that this is completely the wrong approach. For wiki editors to arbitrarily pick a definition of terrorism and use this to decide which groups and incidents fit and which do not is OR. Recognized specialists like Walter Laqueur and Gérard Chaliand need to be consulted when deciding what to put in and what to leave out. There already 56K of main text and guidelines recommend no more that 50K. Kauffner (talk) 10:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. In the improper context of the dominant editors here deciding to label a vast array of groups 'terrorist', I was just trying to say that inserting a sample terrorist act at least makes labeling the Viet Cong a terrorist group semi-coherent. We Wikipedia editors, on our own authority, should label no groups terrorist.Haberstr (talk) 14:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

No RS have labelled them as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.180.15 (talk) 22:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Haberstr what was the point of your edits to the reign of terror section? you fact tagged something without reading the source than rather than revert it, you reedited in way that didn't add any content so what was the point? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.183.163 (talk) 18:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Stop harassing me. It is obvious that I reduced the word count, eliminated repetitiveness, and improved the style.Haberstr (talk) 19:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

On the reign of terror you did nothing of the sort. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.182.11 (talk) 23:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes I did.Haberstr (talk) 23:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

you increased the word count(by six words), increased the repetitiveness(you add the terror) and had no effect on readability, except moving the only pertinent sentence further down the section.

I disagree. If you want to show the two versions, we can talk. There is a lot of positive work that needs to be done on this entry, though, so why don't you give the pointless harassment a rest? As far as I'm concerned this entire topic is an example of glaringly bad faith and should be erased.Haberstr (talk) 14:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I did it myself. The March 7 version was 121 words and my March 10 version is 101. Please consider erasing this asinine section and, definitely, stop lying about me: March 10 (101 words): The Reign of Terror (1793-1794) The Reign of Terror (September 5, 1793 – July 28, 1794) or simply The Terror (French: la Terreur) was a period of eleven months during the French Revolution when struggles between rival factions led to mutual radicalization and violence, including mass executions by guillotine[25]. The word 'terrorist' originated at that time, as that is how the ruling Jacobins referred to themselves.[26]. Victims totaled approximately 40,000. Roughly eight percent of those condemned by the revolutionary tribunals were aristocrats, six percent clergy, 14 percent middle class, and 70 percent were workers or peasants accused of hoarding, evading the draft, desertion, rebellion, and other crimes.[27] March 7 (121 words): The Terror (1793-1794) The Reign of Terror (September 5, 1793 – July 28, 1794) or simply The Terror (French: la Terreur) is where the word terrorist originated, At the time it was used by the revolutionaries in control during the reign of terror[26]. It was a period of about eleven months during the French Revolution when struggles between rival factions led to mutual radicalization which took on a violent character with mass executions by guillotine[27]. The victims of the Reign of Terror totaled approximately 40,000. Among people who were condemned by the revolutionary tribunals, about 8 percent were aristocrats, 6 percent clergy, 14 percent middle class, and 70 percent were workers or peasants accused of hoarding, evading the draft, desertion, rebellion, and other purported crimes.[28]Haberstr (talk) 15:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

In the interests of pruning the article, i think the following could be combined: the 19th century nationalist movements could be rolled to togethers the contras could be rolled into the cold war proxies section. The various palestinian groups (possibly excluding Hamas) The left wing groups of the 60s some of the islamic groups (excluding Al Quaeda) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.183.163 (talk) 18:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

As several comments above have suggested.Haberstr (talk) 20:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Note how the following history of terrorism specifies the scholarly disagreement on exactly the added content that many try to exclude from this history of terrorism:

The 1930s saw a fresh wave of political assassinations deserving of the word terrorism. This led to proposals at the League of Nations for conventions to prevent and punish terrorism as well as the establishment of an international criminal court (neither of which came to aught as they were overshadowed by the events which eventually led to World War II).[xiii] Despite this, during the interwar years, terrorism increasingly referred to the oppressive measures imposed by various totalitarian regimes, most notably those in Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Stalinist Russia. More recently, other governments, such as those military dictatorships which ruled some South American countries in recent years, or the current regime in Zimbabwe, have also been open to charges of using such methods as a tool of state. Such considerations notwithstanding, some commentators, such as Bruce Hoffman, argue that “such usages are generally termed ‘terror’ in order to distinguish that phenomenon from ‘terrorism,’ which is understood to be violence committed by non-state entities.”[xiv] However not everyone agrees that terrorism should be considered a non-governmental undertaking. . . .

[xiii] Adrian Guelke, The Age of Terrorism and the International Political System, I. B. Tauris: New York, 1998, p. 3.

[xiv] Hoffman, p. 25. The opposing arguments in such an approach shall be discussed in a forthcoming article in CDI’s Explaining Terrorism on defining terrorism.

[2]

I'm just asking that our history of terrorism have the openness toward various traditional and common definitions -- there is no one right answer -- that virtually all scholarly sources take.Haberstr (talk) 23:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually virtually all scholarly sources take the definition used here, its called common sense, and we should keep the article thus focused, as i suggested feel free to write a history of terror article, rather than making this one confused and muddled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.182.11 (talk) 23:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It is confused and muddled right now. By being up front about which RS definitions are controlling what goes into the history we'll make it coherent.Haberstr (talk) 04:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Not really it quite clear and useful to anyone who is approach it, since it deals with the common sense understanding of terrorism, so that the average reader can find useful and relevant information with out being waylaid by non relevant attempts to shoe horn in information that doesn't belong here. Sherzo (talk) 05:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Laqueur doesn't; in fact the consensus position seems to be that the definition is unclear. That's my major problem with this entry, that it doesn't recognize and work with that fact, which the major and most authoritative scholars recognize. Of course, things are worse than that here. Here, agreeing with most of the major scholars that the definition is unclear marks you as fringe.Haberstr (talk) 04:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thats what the definition of terrorism of article is for Sherzo (talk) 05:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

here is a possible compromise solution.

The history of terrorism is a history of significant perceived terrorist individuals, groups, and incidents, and the development of terrorism. Some consider acts of state that rely on fear, to be terrorism but these are commonly perceived as war crimes, or crimes against humanity.

Your sentence pretends 'war crimes/crimest against humanity' and terrorism are mutually exclusive categories, which I've never read in any RS. I've made this criticism numerous times, so can you stop this time for a second and think about that? In any case, we need to stop making up our own definition (and exclusions), and rely on the massive discussion over at definition of terrorism, where it is very very clear, right from the start, among nearly all the RS, that there is no agreed definition. Then, we need to have a 'history of terrorism' that reflects and is clear about the muddled reality.Haberstr (talk) 14:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

You've never read the UN definition you were wanting to use? Sherzo (talk) 00:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think what you're referring to supports my sense that the meanings of the term are multiple, disputed and undecided.Haberstr (talk) 23:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The list of war crimes covers what your propose to add here already, well except for guernica, can I why ask you consider Guernica terrorism but not a war crime? Sherzo (talk) 05:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

How do you get that I don't consider Guernica a war crime? I'm focused on improving, condensing, and RS-ing this entry, history of terrorism, and I've never looked at the war crime entry. If you would like to edit over there, be my guest. These 'assuming bad faith' criticisms are getting more and more silly.Haberstr (talk) 16:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

You've been pushing the Guernica as terror across multiple articles yet the place where it most logical belongs you haven't that shows towards POV rather than genuine interest in improving wiki's coverage of the issueSherzo (talk) 00:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Under your logic, you're accusing yourself too.Haberstr (talk) 23:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

How exactly? I have no interest in Guernica you obviously do, I haven't studied it enough to know if its a war crime or not Sherzo (talk) 04:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

You obviously know Guernica was a war crime and are stubbornly refusing to enter it in the war crime wikipedia entry, so obviously you are not interested in improving wikipedia's coverage of war crimes. ;) Haberstr (talk) 05:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

lol, War crimes arent an area of my interest, nor do i know if Guernica is a war crime or not, but they are of interest you so why can't you edit it? Sherzo (talk) 06:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not a matter of expertise, it's a matter of research and finding RS, and you obviously do feel strongly about this issue. Maybe the root of your problem is you want to insert your OR expertise and refuse to follow and use only the consensus of the acknowledged RS experts.Haberstr (talk) 14:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Gotta ask, what exactly stopping you from doing it Haberstr? unless you think your superior and we all work for you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.180.15 (talk) 22:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually it is a matter of expertise, I have never studied Guernica and am not familiar with relevant sources, but why exactly can't you do it? to busy pushing POV here? as for consensus of RS experts you really should take your own advice. Sherzo (talk) 00:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The headline writer makes a claim, but I can find nothing in the cited article's actual text that talks about or supports the idea that the SOE "effectively perfected modern terrorism." And, though it's impossible to check what was on the Channel 4 TV show citation, it seems very dubious that SOE pioneered "most of the tactics, techniques and technologies that are the mainstays of terrorism we know today" (especially since the just previous citation indicates SOE took a lot of what it knew from the IRA. Here is a text source from the same Channel 4 that seems pretty realistic, and doesn't make any overboard claims: [3]. Now, the other issue, should SOE be in this "history of terrorism" article, since there has been a lot of effort put into excluding government entities? Also, if you go to the SOE's fairly long Wikipedia entry, you don't find the word terror, terrorist, or terrorism there. Wikipedia already has espionage and resistance movement entries, and perhaps a history of resistance movements would be a good new entry. Here, at least it should be clarified exactly what claim, about its possibly terrorist qualities, is being made about the SOE; otherwise the entry further muddies up whatever definition seems to be ruling this history of terrorism encyclopedia article.Haberstr (talk) 05:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The SOE operated in the many of terrorist organization and this is all well sourced a such, you seem to be casting dispersions of bad faith on the Channel 4 source which i'll remind is against wiki policy if you have doubts find it and review it. I found the C4 web sources but thats from someone not involved in the series so they may draw different conclusion. The section is well sourced and makes reference to RS calling the SOE actions terrorist, The source for the the fact the british perfected terrorism includes this "be cited as a model by many terrorist organisations in the post-war era." perhaps you should try reading sources before you disparge them.Sherzo (talk) 05:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

you don't find the word guernica on the list of war crimes page does that mean its not a war crime? Sherzo (talk) 06:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Why the extreme rhetoric, "casting aspersions"? I said that there is no way to check that source, and there isn't, and the verifiable sources, including the SOE wikipedia article, don't mention those seemingly exaggerated claims. As for the first reference problem, please read the article and not just the headline. And, the quote you think you've read well is referring to the resistance as a model, not the SOE: "Instead the resistance was seen as an exemplary patriotic enterprise, which would be cited as a model by many terrorist organisations in the post-war era."Haberstr (talk) 06:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

All sources are verifiable you just have to be willing to put the effort in, like the other editors here do. I have read it well, since i read the whole article here it is in context "The military historian John Keegan later claimed that SOE "shamed Britain", but the methods used by SOE, like those of Collins and the IRA, were the product of military weakness. Had Germany won the war, SOE and its allies would have been consigned to the dustbin of history as terrorists and bandits. Instead the resistance was seen as an exemplary patriotic enterprise, which would be cited as a model by many terrorist organisations in the post-war era." You see its about context.

Here is a another quote from noted military historian John Keagan, "We must recognise that our response to the scourge of terrorism is compromised by what we did through SOE. The justification... That we had no other means of striking back at the enemy...is exactly the argument used by the red brigades, the baader meinhoff gang, the PFLP, the IRA and every other half articulate terrorist organisation on Earth. Futile to argue that we were a Democracy and Hitler a Tyrant. Means besmirch ends. SOE besmirched Britain." Sherzo (talk) 06:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

You're not even responding to what I've pointed out, that (1) "effectively perfected modern terrorism" is not referred to in the text of the citation; and (2) that it doesn't seem likely the SOE pioneered "most of the tactics, techniques and technologies that are the mainstays of terrorism we know today" since the just previous reference, the SOE wikipedia entry, and the other source I provided you say nothing of the kind. This is getting frustating. Frankly, I thought you might give up on this angry push since I pointed out so clearly that you had completely misinterpreted the quotation you provided (the one where you said I hadn't read the source). Please assume good faith. Does your quote from Keagan, by the way, mean you think states can practice terrorism?Haberstr (talk) 06:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I do nothing but respond to the many many threads you start to keep pushing the same agenda, if your getting frustrated think how the rest of use feel, this is the 3rd time you started a new section for this topic alone. You ask me to assume good faith after accusing me of "an Angry push" Fenian right you really are a troll arent you? 1)The article backs the citation, 2)Its sourced, but if we taking other wikipedia articles as a base then i guess Guernica isnt a war crime? On the matter of good faith do you have any reason to doubt the channel 4 source that been on the article several years or is it just that it doesnt agree with your POV? Sherzo (talk) 07:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Instead of getting off topic and showing you assume I'm not writing in good faith, why don't you respond to either (1) or (2), which seem very reasonable points.Haberstr (talk) 14:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

As for you second point, how would you exactly differentiate between terrorists and freedom fighters? as unlike you claims of war crimes being terrorism there is geniune debate as no terrorists call themselves as such, as the old adage goes, one man's terrorist is another's Freedom fighter. Sherzo (talk) 05:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

RS don't generally call the SOE or the French resistance "terrorists." It's our job to follow consensus, or if there isn't consensus to point that out. Consistently in this history that is not being done, and instead two or three editors over here are deciding what is and isn't terrorist.Haberstr (talk) 06:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

we don't? what we don't do is make POV judgment based on if we agree or disagree with a groups motives, but further than that it clearly had impact on how terrorism developed, clandestine assymetrical warfare as the cited article clearly states, but yo see we don't "decide" we rely on reliable academic sources.Sherzo (talk) 06:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

No, we don't. Anyway, the paragraph doesn't make it clear that the SOE was not a terrorist entity. I'm all for inclusiveness, but with explanations.Haberstr (talk) 06:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

you seem to have to misunderstood me i was answering the fact we don't, and that it was a silly thing to imply. Its not the paragraph job to make it clear it wasn't terrorist, these are alleged terrorist we don't imply one way or another, as almost all groups would claim their not terrorists as John Keagan points out, and the regimes they were fighting against certainly considered them as such. Sherzo (talk) 06:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, no. The entry is called 'history of terrorism' not 'history of alleged terrorism'. So we do have to make it clear about how these various groups are getting included. That's why I add specific alleged or actual terrorist acts, if they aren't already there, to the entries I edit.Haberstr (talk)

All terrorism is alleged, the IRA don't accept their terrorists nor do Al Quaeda, and it says alleged in the opening sentence, it a way to avoid a POV, you should look into that. Sherzo (talk) 07:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Not responsive at all; you apparently didn't read in good faith what I wrote. You can't simply expect readers to agree with the terrorist label when you slap it, for instance, on the French resistance. You have to write what made their acts terrorist. Bringing down the Nazi transportation network doesn't do that job (in fact that fact may not even be relevant to this history of terrorism entry; this is not 'history of resistance'). Blowing up a cafe and killing civilians does (if that's what they did).Haberstr (talk) 15:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I do enjoy how you latch onto terms, Faith is want you grant someone prior to experience. how is crippling the economic infrastructure of france any different to the IRA? in fact the IRA tended to give warnings so are they terrorist or resistance fighters? you've got ubderstand determining anyone as a resistance member, a freedom fighter or terrorist is entirely POV, the article accepts the common concept used today but passes no judgement for or against any groups, well until you started editing someone gonna have to review the contras and over additions for POV, to do so would be POV. They bombed cafes etc to kill nazi officers, blew up buildings, and sank ferries.

You seem to be very sure what terrorist means, and you seem to want very much to debate what terrorist means. I would like us to acknowledge the consensus RS that says it is a contended term.Haberstr (talk) 17:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Its the way i read the source, can i ask is there a reason you felt the need to start another ww2 section, could add something on Plastic explosives, which the SOE were fond of or how americans call it Plastique because when they took some to show the US it had already been packaged for france. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.181.103 (talk) 11:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, mention plastic explosives. That's one innovation largely introduced by the British.Haberstr (talk) 14:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

You dispute the source though, in fact you yet to raise why you feel that citation was put there in bad faith, so you must have some pretty strong evidence since its been here along time with no such aspersions

The one source I have a problem with doesn't say anything about plastic explosives. The other source I have a problem with makes a dubious exaggerated claim that's not relevant to the plastic explosives claim. That SOE developed and by and large introduced plastic explosives into modern covert warfare is supported very well in the SOE wikipedia entry, and someone should just go there and use one of their sources. (That the SOE developed plastic explosives doesn't mean, and the SOE entry doesn't state, that the SOE pioneered "most of the tactics, techniques and technologies that are the mainstays of terrorism we know today"; that seems a vast overreach not supported by any RS other than possibly by that uncheckable TV program.)Haberstr (talk) 17:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Why is the claim dubious? you doubt the credibility of channel 4 as a source or you feel it was added in bad faith? or is it you just don't like and are using the tags as a form of vandalism? BTW Plastic explosive is a technologySherzo (talk) 00:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I've explained my reasoning repeatedly above, and you have chosen not to respond.Haberstr (talk) 15:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Not once have you said why you feel the channel 4 source is dubious, and you're clearly wrong on the Britain perfected terrorism source, so at this point we can only assume bad faith on your part —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.181.157 (talk) 20:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I think a fair reading of this discussion will show that you are lying and writing in bad faith.Haberstr (talk) 22:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

you really dont want people to do that, as a fair reading will only help to highlight the POV you're pushing. At no point when challenged have you given reasons for the dubious tag, and the only one lying is you! by putting a failed verification tag on something that doesn't fail verification!

The headline writer makes a claim, but I can find nothing in the cited article's actual text that talks about or supports the idea that the SOE "effectively perfected modern terrorism." And, though it's impossible to check what was on the Channel 4 TV show citation, it seems very dubious that SOE pioneered "most of the tactics, techniques and technologies that are the mainstays of terrorism we know today" (especially since the just previous citation indicates SOE took a lot of what it knew from the IRA. Here is a text source from the same Channel 4 that seems pretty realistic, and doesn't make any overboard claims: [4]. . . .Haberstr (talk) 05:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)Haberstr (talk) 23:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The title of the article reflects what the article is about including the line that it served as a template for modern groups. Its far from impossible to check you just need to watch the series, it maybe difficult but no more difficult than looking up old newspaper articles and certainly not as difficult as finding an out of print book. But the IRA would be pioneer tactics that formed the basis of the second world war not the modern world as the article clearly indicates, I am aware of the channel 4 web source (since i found it) but as started before that isn't the website of the program but simply a related article discussed on the website. Sherzo (talk) 05:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

You haven't responded to the following: (1) The headline writer makes a claim, but I can find nothing in the cited article's actual text that talks about or supports the idea that the SOE "effectively perfected modern terrorism." Sherzo, please quote the text that supports your position. (2) it seems very dubious that SOE pioneered "most of the tactics, techniques and technologies that are the mainstays of terrorism we know today" (especially since the just previous citation indicates SOE took a lot of what it knew from the IRA. Here is a text source from the same Channel 4 that seems pretty realistic, and doesn't make any overboard claims: [5]. In addition, as I also said repeatedly above, the Wikipedia SOE entry says nothing remotely similar to the claim in the quoted sentence. Sherzo, why is an ostensibly spectacular fact about SOE not included in the main Wikipedia entry on SOE? Shouldn't that make a reasonable person dubious?Haberstr (talk) 05:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

1) if you can't find then you either haven't read or understood the article, i have already quoted one example line i could copy and paste the entire article but that wouldn't help your reading comprehension or POV blinders. the article has been authored and titled by an academic historian that makes it reliable. 2) why does it seem dubious do you have a reliable academic source that says so? any reliable source? or just your own POV? for example is Plastic explosive a common technology in terrorism? did the SOE pioneer it? so what exactly is dubious, the War crimes article doesn't contain Guernica does that mean Guernica isnt a war crime? Sherzo (talk) 06:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

1) Apparently you think "the line that it served as a template for modern groups" (whatever that is) means you are justified in writing that the SOE "effectively perfected modern terrorism." 2) You haven't responded to the question I placed in bold typeface so you'd notice it (Sherzo, why is an ostensibly spectacular fact about SOE not included in the main Wikipedia entry on SOE? Shouldn't that make a reasonable person dubious?)Haberstr (talk) 15:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

other articles aren't an argument for against anything in an article, you should take it solely on the merits of the article here, for example the SOE article also makes no mention of plastic explosives, does that mean the we should consider any source citing the SOE used them as dubious? the only reason to consider a source dubious is if its from a POV or unreliable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.180.15 (talk) 22:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Why should it be considered dubious it wasn't listed in the filmography either so does that mean you consider it dubious that the documentary even existed? is that your argument?Sherzo (talk) 00:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Would anyone object if this section is re-written as a section about The Troubles? Right now the article is unbalanced as it doesn't include the Ulster Defence Association, Ulster Volunteer Force and so on. There seems little point having sections for each group when we can have one about the Troubles in general? O Fenian (talk) 11:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

There was discussion on that before, on the one hand i agree with you, on the other the loyalist and break away republican groups are small fry compared to the IRA, so it's a question of notability with in the article (as with the Al quaeda attacks excluding 9/11), particularly when were looking at pruning it, obviously at least a sentence acknowledging them might be prudent. why don't you write post here or in your pages and we'll have a look? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.181.103 (talk) 11:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Except that the UDA and UVF combined killed more civilians than the Provisional IRA.. I'll write something up later. O Fenian (talk) 11:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

perhaps I phrased that wrong but the IRA are certainly the most famous, and the largest. as for you mention on casualities do you have a source for that because every source i've read the lowest figure for the IRA is between 1000-2000 and the highest for the UVF is 400 and the UDA 100. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.181.103 (talk) 12:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Link, first variable "Status", second variable "Organisation". The UDA and UFF are listed separately so need to be added together, in addition to the UVF total. O Fenian (talk) 12:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I'm always interested in reading new material on the troubles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.181.103 (talk) 12:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Fenian it was something i was intending to do before i went away, though the lion share would still have to focus on the IRA.Sherzo (talk) 00:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

To get closer to the wikipedia length guidelines, this section should probably have two paragraphs, one long one on everything before the Reign of Terror, and one brief one on the reign of terror itself. Perhaps there should be a separate wikipedia entry on the roots or pre-history of terrorism.Haberstr (talk) 14:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

To get closer to the wikipedia length guidelines, I think Irgun and Lehi sections should be combined (Zionist terrorist groups?) and overall length shortened.Haberstr (talk) 18:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Some of these comments will be redundant with some other discussions that are still ongoing, but consider these to be quite seriously this article has a lot of content issues.

Some of these problems will be very hard to solve without a re-write, as it is basically one inherent to how the article is constructed. Rather than an encyclopedia entry on the "History of terrorism", based on scholarly research, what we get is a commented list of organizations that someone considers terrorist.

A much better article would give us a political history (ie when the term was used and why? - Cyprus comes to mind), an acadmeic history (ie the retroactive use of the term, the consequences of irregular warfare etc) military history (ie development of specific tactics, like assassination, bombing, and airplane hijacking, the views on assymetrical warfare and irregular warfare - guerillas in the French occupation of Spain for example) and expose us to the debate around the term, the usage of the term, and the disputes (ie one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter or the various views on State terrorism and state-sponsored terrorism). For an article that claims to be a "history" it has very little true histographical content, and a lot of fringe views and synthesis.

Keep in mind tha these comments are not meant to reflect upon the authors, but upon the article itself.

I have tagged it to show these, so it bears explanation:

• Context

This article provides very little context to the political environment in which these organizations existed. Even with the arbitrary (see below) headings and sub-headings used, it misleads readers into basically visualizing these organizations as having some common thread, which they don't.

• Disputed

Basically I disputed that a coherent history of terrorism has to focus on organizations, and that historians of terrorism (political, academic, and military) base their studies on a focus on organizations. There are always case studies in histrography, but these are blended into the narrative, not listed in this fashion.

I dispute the classification of all of these organizations (the headings and sub-headings). For example, there is much overlap in the anti-colonial and leftist/nationalist category, and this one seems highly arbitrary, and I supect POV driven.

I also dispute the classification of certain organizations as terrorist, in particular without attribution. Lehi is considered by some to be a terrorist organization, but by others to be anti-colonial freedom fighters. Their naked inclusion is misleading. In fact, I cannot think of single organization listed here for which similar arguments cannot be made.

There are also errors of ommision: there seems to be arbitrarianess is the choices for inclusion, and even naming issues. For example, "Chechen separatists" have names, like All-National Congress of the Chechen People.

• Globalize

Doesn't correspond with a world-wide view of the subject. This has a POV implication, a bias one, but also a RS one. Views of the subject and on the definition vary widely across the world, and this article has to reflect this.

• NPOV

One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. We are required not only to present information in an NPOV, but we must ensure our narrative is also NPOV. In particular, the use of the term "terrorist" and "terrorism" as political epithet is not given any amount of coverage, somethign that is shown trivially by looking at reliable sources on the subject. When writing history articles, news sources should be limited and academic sources should be used whenever possible.

• original research

This is basically a problem through the article: the very definition of the topic is original research, rather than steming from reliable sources. I am afraid a major re-write will be needed to satisfy this issue.

• Primary sources

A minor issue, but some of the sources ar eprimary from which synthesis is derived. It would be much better if secondary sources are used instead.

• Ref improve

Many statements and the narrative itself are not sourced correctly. For an article about the history of terrorism, there are way to little sources on the subject itself, and rather sources are about instance of terrorism. This smacks of WP:COATRACK.

• Synthesis

There are plenty of reliable sources and an emerging academic consensus on this topic. However, this is not reflected in this article, which uses a synthetic approach to the topic. The structure, topics, and focus on organizations or conflicts are more like WP:COATRACK than an actual article, as most of the information is already available in the articles about the given conflict or organization. This gives the impression that wikipedia is calling these organization terrorist, which should not be the case in their articles - sources call organizations terrorist, not us.

Reliable sources are available that would give a less synthetic view on the subject, and improve it. It should be our goal to seek them out and rewrite the article to reflect this.

• Weasel

It is clear that some of the wording doesn't really reflect the sources, or reflects them in weasely ways. There have been attempts to address concenrs on OR SYNTH and NPOV by re-wording, making things worse. The issue with the article is structural, and weasel wording won't solve them.

• Overcoverage

While many relevant things are omited, many others are given too much coverage, which can be resolved by use of {{main}} and {{seealso}}.

• Too few opinions

Again, there seems to be too little views from reliable academic sources providing a coherent narrative to the article. Historiography, like any field of knowledge, develops a majority consensus on topics, with significant minority views, and then the WP:FRINGE. This article doesn't provide a coherent view on this academic perspective, because of its inherent synthetic nature.

• POV Check

I have requested that the community examine these issues, in particular as they relate to neutrality issues.

I hope this starts a fruitful debate, as there is no doubt this is a topic that needs to be covered.--Cerejota (talk) 18:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your input. I agree with everything you've written. A major re-structuring and the implied rewriting is a needed but daunting task. Perhaps we should start with the lead 'paragraph' (a sentence at this point). That could indicate for the various writers here how to proceed 'structurally' in the rest of the article.Haberstr (talk) 19:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm Afraid i disagree,

• Context

Do you have specific examples? as I find, It provides relevant context, but keeps this short so as to not over lengthen an already long article Sherzo (talk) 00:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• Disputed

The article is sourced extensively to reliable academic sources. You claim its POV driven to include certain groups is POV since you're making a judgment on a groups terrorist nature, the article avoids doing this, If the argument was taken that only groups that call themselves terrorist be included then only the Reign of terror would remain. All are sourced and when working on an article like this you have to leave your personal biases behind.

• Globalize

Sorry what? do you have a specific examples? have you read the article at all? because extensive work has been taken to globalize the article, from its original anglo american viewpoint

• NPOV

Again have you read the article? it opens with the phrase alleged and this issue relates to all terrorism, at no point does the article relate to the morality of any groups actions, merely the actions itself, do you have any specific examples of NPOV?

• original research

The article was forked from the history of terrorism article, and again i must ask Do you have specific examples? as the article is sourced extensively and the editors (other than Haberstr) here have made extensive work to avoid any original claims

• Primary sources

Again examples? because i just glanced over them and the majority seem to be books or websites not primary, the only primary sources i can see off hand are the images.

• Ref improve

Again where exactly? the article has nearly 200 references, most of which are from academic works.

• Synthesis

It gives no such impression in fact, it merely relates facts about significant groups RS have called terrorist, and backs this up with extensive sourcing similar to other articles on controversial issues like the list of war crimes, if you attempt a more narrative approach then you would create POV and Global viewpoint issues. So this is the best approach for the difficult subject matter.

• Weasel

again examples? what ones don't reflect the sources?

• Overcoverage

what relevant things are omited? and which are given too much coverage? please tell the other editors so we can review your conclusions

• Too few opinions

Really where exactly? are there too few opinions among its 185 sources? which sections are lacking this? and what sources do you feel are fringe?

• POV Check

What POV issues? the only issues i can see are Haberstr recent additions and these are in the process of being reviewed.

Ultimately i have to ask did you read the article or the sources as this smacks of drive by editing, because without scecifics theres no way to rectify or discuss any of your perceived issuesSherzo (talk) 00:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

original research...This is basically a problem through the article: the very definition of the topic is original research, rather than steming from reliable sources. I am afraid a major re-write will be needed to satisfy this issue.

What? This article has its flaws, but lacking reliable sources is not one of them. Juergensmeyer, Hoffman, Laqueur, and Chaliand are well-respected academics. Hoffman teaches at Georgetown. Laqueur has been publishing works on the subject since the 70s. Between them, they have published, literally, dozens of books--well known, peer-reviewed books, not crack pamphlets. So could you please explain why these do not qualify as "reliable sources?" Also, one of these experts' main areas of focus has been the definition of terrorism, so could you also please explain why "the very definition of the topic is original research?" Thank you.

Mcenroeucsb (talk) 04:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The worst OR and POV is simply that we are putting 'the mark of the beast' on a large number of groups by placing their names in the titles of the various subsections. Very few of these groups call themselves terrorist, and there are many neutral and sympathetic observers who agree with them. That leads to the following, larger point, which I think the visitor to the site was indicating, that the history of terrorism should not be, basically, the imported and spozed to be deleted "history of terrorist groups."Haberstr (talk) 15:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

None of them would call themselves terrorists, but Academic sources do, as for terrorist groups if you think that why did you create a seperate section for the contras rather than add them to the cold war proxy section?

I was conforming to the dominant structural practice here. I hope we can discuss moving away from the authors of this article itself labeling groups terrorist, but I'm happy with 'many scholars allege' and so on.Haberstr (talk) 22:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The introductory sentence makes that clear, as far as i can see none of the sections call anyone a terrorist, only that a source as described them as such or they have been listed as such by a government etc, but perhaps you should review your own additions for POV before calling the entire article into question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.181.157 (talk) 22:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Here are some examples of 'accusation of terrorism' phrasing, from just the first third of the article: " Inspired by Narodnaya Volya, several nationalist groups in the ailing Ottoman Empire began using propaganda of the deed and terrorism in the 1890s, including the Hunchakian Revolutionary Party, the Armenian Revolutionary Federation, and the IMRO.[32]" "Anarchists were the most prolific terrorists of the 19th century,[citation needed] with the terroristic tendencies of both nationalism and political movements of communism or fascism still in their infancy.[citation needed]" "He committed several terrorist attacks between 1856 and 1859. . ." "The group has often used terrorism, violence. . ." "These were the first acts of "republican terrorism". . ." "Narodnaya Volya developed certain ideas that were to become the hallmark of subsequent terrorism in many countries: they believed in the targeted killing of the 'leaders of oppression'. . ." "Like the IRA and the Zionist terrorist groups, Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood used bombings and assassinations. . ." "These retaliatory tactics, such as bombing a crowded Arab market, were some of the first examples of terrorism against civilians.[64]" "In addition to the terrorist acts against Arabs. . ." "The vast array of guerilla, partisan, and resistance movements that were organised and supplied by the Allies during World War II used tactics that can be considered terrorist in nature[78]." "it organised with the French resistance the complete destruction of the rail[81] and communication infrastructure of western France[82] perhaps the largest coordinated terrorist attack in history[citation needed]." "The SOE effectively perfected modern terrorism,[85]" "With the end of World War 2 saw a rise in nationalism and the collapses of the old european empires this in turn saw a rise anti-colonial and nationalist terrorism. The 1950s saw the formation of the FLN in French-controlled Algeria, the EOKA in British-controlled Cyprus, and the ETA in Spain.[87] Many of the resistance groups of World War II would go to become nationalist terrorist groups."Haberstr (talk) 22:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

the majority of those are from Mcenroeucsb wealth of useful content and given how recently they are a certain about of grace can be given, or they are sourced and as such but if those issues you consider, where havent you copy edited them or tagged them?

But lets examine a couple

"The vast array of guerilla, partisan, and resistance movements that were organised and supplied by the Allies during World War II used tactics that can be considered terrorist in nature[78]." "it organised with the French resistance the complete destruction of the rail[81] and communication infrastructure of western France[82]" "The SOE effectively perfected modern terrorism,[85]" "Could be considered" isn't an accusation and the statements compare those actions to/ or call it terrorism are all reliable sourced.

"With the end of World War 2 saw a rise in nationalism and the collapses of the old european empires this in turn saw a rise anti-colonial and nationalist terrorism. what group specifically is it calling terrorist?

I do enjoy how you flip flop on these issues or are you just an anarchist, the state is always bad?

Sherzo (talk) 05:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Example 1: A person could collect a large libel judgment if he were marked, in print, in an encyclopedia no less, as "can considered terrorist." Example 2: The immediately following sentence lists several apparent examples of what the sentence introduced, 'terrorist' anti-colonial and nationalist groups.Haberstr (talk) 14:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

remind you not to make LEGAL THREATS on wikipedia, and the large libe judgment would be against the RS and the group would have to prove they weren't terrorists and there are no limits to inquiry in a tort case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.180.15 (talk) 22:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

If I ever consider making one of those, thanks, or should I just say "huh?" Otherwise, in this non-lawyer's judgment, your legal opinion is spectacularly and irresponsibly wrong-headed.Haberstr (talk) 05:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Also you were the one who deleted the nationaism and end of empire section and rolled it into the intro of the 50s so are you essentially saying your deliberately vandalising the article now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.180.15 (talk) 22:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

*Disagree At no point have you listed any examples of these problems and i take particularly issue with the claim of poor sourcing and NPOV, did you read the article or just the title and decided to dump a bunch of unwarranted tags on it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.181.157 (talk) 19:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

If the OP doesnt post some justification for these tags by the end of the week, i'm gonna consider it a drive by and just delete them.

Well, am here. Sorry didn't reply before, but this is a lengthy response that requires time and thought. I will be replying shortly, in reverse order of lenght (ie I will start by the shortest). I will do so in sections to promote continous debate, rather than long posts on multiple topics.--Cerejota (talk) 01:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Still you offer no specifics, for example were are these weasel words you object to, i notice that when you restored your tags you removed actually read the sources i guess and figure they were unjustifed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.183.224 (talk) 13:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Carrying forward (at least the relatively easy part of) the spirit of Cerejota's suggestions from (immediately) above, it would be wise and NPOV to do our best to eliminate group names from subsection titles. This may involve consolidating numerous subsections into larger (but edited down) sections. To aid readers, and as a compromise with group-focused individual editors, we could put all the group names mentioned in bold letters. Sometimes we already have consensus on this, for example someone suggested renaming 'provisional IRA' as 'The Troubles'.Haberstr (talk) 17:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I have no particularly problem with that, i've always argued for the broad strokes over the specific groups though some should be kept seperate because they won't fit being shoe horned (John Brown and Aum for example) or are far too notable (Al Quaeda and 9/11), but if you want to give it read write a draft in a subsection on your page, and we can take a look —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.181.157 (talk) 19:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I certainly think there is an argument for cutting back the article to include those groups notable in the evolution of terrorism (anarchists, Nationalists, IRA, SOE) but this runs the risk of a western bias and POV Sherzo (talk) 05:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Seeing no protest to my suggestion, I eliminated group names from subsection titles, but Sherzo has decided to cancel those changes. He apparently likes the "history of terrorist groups" look of the present purported history of terrorism.Haberstr (talk) 07:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

eliminating the section titles doesnt change the content it just makes the article less easy to navigate. Sherzo (talk) 07:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The article shouldn't be a history of terrorist groups. The way to start down that path is to eliminate the subsection titles. How can you _begin_ to end "history of terrorist groups" other than by ending the group names as subsection titles? I'm trying to do this in a piecemeal fashion, so other editors can protest each piece, rather than in a wholesale manner.Haberstr (talk) 07:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite the entire section you feel needs changing, post a draft in your a personal subpage, allow other editors to provide input then post, what your doing is merely style over substance and only makes the article harder to navigate. Sherzo (talk) 08:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm being bold, and will continue in that wikipedia-recommended fashion. I think you're the only person who stubbornly reverts all changes but your own.Haberstr (talk) 15:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

You shouldn't revert other people's edits in the process and generally lower the quality of the article which your edits tend to do

The following is a good model: [6]. It seems there was first the Reign of Terror (which obviously echoes in the much later Stalin and Hitler regimes). Then there was an era of assassination. Then there was insurgent groups using terror(ism) as one tactic in anti-colonial struggle. Finally there is international terrorism as exemplified by al Queda. This doesn't fit perfectly, nothing ever will, but it might generate four major sections. A fifth might be a section on pre- Reign of Terror 'roots of terrorism'.Haberstr (talk) 19:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

That was and is still a major source for this article its key problem is a british bias the broadening of this article to include more groups and sources was primarily an effort to get it away from its anglo american bias.

I'm not talking about it as a source, but as a good model for how to structure things historically, to get farther away from looking like a history of terrorist groups.Haberstr (talk) 22:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

That was one of the original models for the article when it was first written however the problem with such a narrative style was the western bias and POV Sherzo (talk) 05:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't get how an organizational structure has western bias and POV. Was there a discussion on this before the article was changed into what looks very similar to wikipedia's (soon to be axed) 'history of terrorist groups'?Haberstr (talk) 05:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Read the archive, essentially people felt that model that told a developmental history excluded many groups, how exactly do you link Aum and the IRA within one narrative? thats was the problem, so instead it evolved into this model with the original pieces becoming fragmented and overshadowed by those of groups, but equally there are key groups and events that should be mention the problem is the ones i consider key for example would be shaped by my western perspective which doesn't reflect a japanese, Indian or african perspective on terrorism. Sherzo (talk) 06:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:History of terrorism/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi! Following a quick view of the article, I am afraid it qualifies to be quick failed due to the multitude of tags that outline outstanding serious issues with the article. I apologise, but because of this I will be failing this article's Good article nomination. However, once these issues have been addressed, please feel free to post it back up as a good article nominee. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 08:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I think this is where we're at right now. People have done a lot of hard work detailing and sourcing many of the facts about the various groups described herein, which we just need to abbreviate, keeping the stuff that's directly relevant to the topic here. There also needs to be work done changing and improving the overriding and connecting narrative, and making that narrative nuanced and inclusive of the range of established academic opinion on terrorism(s). Most of that info can likely can be taken from the terrorism and definition of terrorism wikipedia entries.Haberstr (talk) 15:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree on the structure this is a better way since its less POV which is the greater evil —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.180.15 (talk) 22:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I actually agree with haberstr but i honestly can't see how it can be done without OR and POV,Sherzo (talk) 00:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

{{pov-check}} is used, as the tag itself says, to get the community to check the article for neutrality. This means to try and get an uninvolved set of eyes to check the article. It is a process similar to a GA or assesment review, but focusing on POV concenrs. It should not be removed until such process are done. It doesn't mean that going through a POV check resolves POV issues, but it is usually a good start.--Cerejota (talk) 01:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you'd be better contacting established users and asking them to have a look then waiting for people to do it of their own accord. Sherzo (talk) 04:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Now, that is the whole point of the tag: that a random, self-selecting user comes around to it.--Cerejota (talk) 07:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

that maybe so but given experience on this page you will be waiting a long time Sherzo (talk) 10:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Also you yet to give any specific examples of POV or any specifics at all Sherzo (talk) 10:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Absurd, you pretend you haven't been very actively reading this discussion section, where POV has long been the central overt and underlying topic. Look at many of my comments for a start.Haberstr (talk) 15:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

only your POV pushing Haberstr —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.183.224 (talk) 16:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Out of 188 references in the article as of this writing, a whooping 24 are from Chaliand's book and another 20 are from Hoffman's. So we have 2 authors representing 44 of the sources. In percentage terms: 23% of the sources are from to authors, nearly a quarter.

This over reliance on a limited amount of sources, makes it inevitable that we would adopt their biases in this article. These sources and their perspectives are definitely important, and even normative to a certain extent, but represent the Anglo-American view on the subject on the one hand - to the detriment of non-Anglo-American sources - and the other hand a large number of the citations by notable academics of these sources represent criticisms of them - even in the Anglo-American concepts.

There are in fact too few opinions. This fact is hidden because of overcitation and over reliance on the same sources over and over again. This calls into question the normative usage: in histographic normativity, more is always better... an inb4: with carefulness not to cite from citations (ie, as WP:CITE requires, if we cite a source citing another source, we should either cite the original one, or properly attribute the cite).

Now, since such a limited amount of sources dominate the narrative, this means that there is not enough coverage of equally valid sources, including sources that re-inforce and agree with the narrative put forth by Chaliand and Hoffman. So we instead of a comprehensive, coherent, and encyclopedic view on this subject, we have the views of two authors, suplemented by original research, synthesis, and even bad sources (terrorism.about.com is not a reliable source, OK?). But moar on that latter.

The bottom line is we need to excersice this article so it can lose all the WP:LARD and then we need to pump the steroids and find even more sources, so if it ends up with 300 refs, each one of them is lean, means, super reliable muscle, instead of flabbly lard.--Cerejota (talk) 01:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

First its actually closer to about 10% each and both are consider reliable academic sources. Nor is it over reliant on them nor to they shape the structure or form bias has they have been added by a recent editor to the existing structure. The argument that the sources are limited is false and the idea of an anglo american bias is in my opinion also false at this stage, the article has been consistly expanded for a worldwide view to the detriment of the narrative, which is minimal the article instead gives facts cited to RS avoiding any pov inherrent to a narrative structure. Your argument about non anglo american vp, groups are covered that don't fall within the zeitgeist of that viewpoint, Tamil tigers, ETA, Aum now the majority of the sources maybe from anglo american sources but then this is the english language wikipedia, so it is expected if not common for sources to be in english.

There are many opinions over a hundred in fact so the argument that the same sources are used repeatedly, is not valid, most sections contain the majority of their cites to sources specifically discussing that group.

Again i dispute this not only are there many distinct and diverse sources but not one of them dominants the minimial narrative of the article. again at what points do either of those author shape the narrative? they were to my knowledge largely added by one editor to the pre existing shape to cite specific facts or better shape and source specific sections, they did not form the basis of an article rewrite. "we have the views of two authors, suplemented by original research, synthesis, and even bad sources (terrorism.about.com is not a reliable source, OK?). But moar on that latter." These is entirely false, and i cannot understand how a through reading of the article would give such an impression. Can you please give specific incidents were these are the case? since original research seems underfounded due to the heavy sourcing, as does synthesis, as for bad sources which ones do you consider bad? since About.com or Answer.com are not cited in this article as far as i can see all are reliable academic, news or government sources.

I really dont feel lard applies unless your also arguing the topic fails notability the sources are related and useful, and what particularly sources do you think are unreliable?Sherzo (talk) 04:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Larding is not only about unreliability of sources, but about repeating the same source so then empty arguments like "OH NOES! ALMOST 200 SAUCES!" can be made. Is the equivalent of the 31 flavors of baskin robbins: If half of them are some sort of chocolate or vanilla iteration, you can't really call em flavors. The issue is that this article needs, as a starting point, to abandon over reliance on a narrative that is not global in scope, and that is not biased towards one view on the topic. In fact, there is very little in the way of narrative controversy in this article, something that both Hoffman and Chaliand address. So its not even just that, its that these sources are being cherrypicked for the specific narrative content. I cannot believe, for example, that an article on the history of terrorism, is mostly a discussion of groups or "causes" alleged to be terroristic. No serious scholar reduces the study of terrorism as a cocnept to case studies of specific groups, which is what this article essentially amounts... and the total absence on the contemporary debates, the whole one man's terorist is another's freedom fighter" concept, first used to refer to the PIRA. The experiences and language around terrorism have a surprising amount of changes and perspectives that are absent: this is obviously due to the total lack of sources, and attempt to build a good article based on poor scholarship. --Cerejota (talk) 07:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

There are over 100 seperate sources, again i have ask have you read the article? it has both a starting point, and what exactly is the narrative? The article avoids an over narrative, and is those parts it is present, at the start of sections it is global, and again do you have a specific examples for these bias and cherrypicking you see? Your suggestion of a grand overview would only lead to greater POV and over reliance of specific sources to structure it. As for the one man's terrorist cliche, it actually far older, than the PIRA and the etymology, but its place is on the definition of terrorism page, as for poor scholarship are you saying you feel the sources are of poor quality? Sherzo (talk) 08:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

"'one man's terorist is another's freedom fighter" concept, first used to refer to the PIRA. The experiences and language around terrorism have a surprising amount of changes and perspectives that are absent: this is obviously due to the total lack of sources, and attempt to build a good article based on poor scholarship."

If there arent reliable sources for it then its just your POV pushing OR perhaps you should review this before placing tags on articles/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.183.224 (talk) 13:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I began to address the conceptual/definitional confusion, which could then inform the narrative, with a one-paragraph definition subsection, but that was rejected, and we're back again to no definition section at all. See subsection below for 'discussion'.Haberstr (talk) 07:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The article should be coherent and worth reading. For that, there needs to be narrative, not just a list of groups. Books on the history of terrorism have been written and these should be used as guides. There are only a small number of such books, although of course there are more than just these two. This "makes it inevitable that we would adopt their biases in this article". Yes! This is what NPOV is all about. The alternative is to arbitrarily adopt some definition of terrorism and decide what is terrorism and what is not based on our own biases. Kauffner (talk) 06:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Isn't the initial choice of source also arbitrary? In fact, I do not find those arguments compelling (and I have heard it a million times) and are usually a sign of POV pushing. You can make and article that is both readable, and whose narrative emerges from a wide range of varied sources.--Cerejota (talk) 07:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

the sources your objecting to weren't the initial ones, Nor is Kauffner i feel pushing a POV i disagree with him because a narrative would either involve synthesis and OR or POV and over reliance on a particularly source, but if you think it can be done and the existing article is so terrible why don't you do it? its easy to throw stones, try making a meaningful contribution instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.183.224 (talk) 16:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

An article entitled "History of Terrorism" should rely primarily on mainstream sources that focus on the history of terrorism. Sure there are other ways to write an article, but this is the NPOV and NOR method. If your sources focus on specific groups and incidents, where does the narrative come from? It common for writer to emphasize the importance of whatever they are writing about, so perspective gets lost. For example, "People’s Will" is the seminal terrorist group, the one responsible for popularizing the modern usage of the term "terrorist." It's also one of the most influential groups in terrorist history. But here it is just another group on a really long list. Kauffner (talk) 08:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

but your insistence the people will is important is your POV, someone could equally claim the Fenians, the IRA, or The SOE, the minimial narrative avoids such POV and bias so its a trade off between POV and OR against Structure and Narrative. Sherzo (talk) 10:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Huh? WP:NPOV has nothing to do with treating all terrorist groups as if they were equal. When you present various groups as equally important, that is an editorial judgment as well. Like the old song says, "If you chose not to decide, you still have made a choice." Should the article grow until every terrorist group in history gets a section? The first duty of the article is to provide a service to reader -- and it certainly doesn't help when the article is an unorganized mess. Kauffner (talk) 12:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The article is far from unorganised and a mess! your judgment that there unequal is POV —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.183.224 (talk) 13:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

It causes incoherence if we have no definition section at all. Unfortunately, Sherzo has decided to reject my one-paragraph effort. I realize this article is too long, but I think that needs to be taken out of the ('official' owners') excessive focus on naming and writing a paragraph on every group in history associated with terrorism.Haberstr (talk) 07:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no need for a definition there is already an article for this, no reason to repeat it here. Sherzo (talk) 07:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

That's not a reason; there are already long and detailed articles on every topic in this "history of terrorist groups, I mean terrorism". Coherence is lent to the ensuing history by telling readers, at the very least, that terrorism is an officially disputed and undefined term. Then the reader can follow better as the history goes through the different permutations in how the term is used (I'm hoping that reality will be allowed into this history). The Wikipedia 'definition of terrorism' entry (by the way) is long and very poorly organized.Haberstr (talk) 07:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The Definition of terrorism article deals specifically with the complex issue of the definition and does far better than a short section on this already overlong article could do justice. If you feel the definition of terrorism entry has problems then you should post those concerns there and work on them there.Sherzo (talk) 07:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

'The IRA article deals specifically with the complex issue of the IRA and does far better than a short section on this already overlong article could do justice.' Get my point? (I'm not saying we shouldn't briefly discuss the IRA). The history section needs to be greatly reduced, but the history of terrorism article needs a definition section to assist readers as they enter the complex definitional debates that are an essential part of its history.Haberstr (talk) 08:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

This article however deals with how the IRA has affected other groups and its general impact on the development of terrorism which a specific facet and also structures such groups and events into a single organised chronology which is useful. but by your reasoning the article should be deleted and simple template connecting the cited groups, be used instead? Sherzo (talk) 08:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The pre-nineteenth and nineteenth centuries seem amenable to a great deal of condensation (readers who want to know a great deal about their exploits can go to those wikipedia pages). The 20th century looks harder to condense. I don't know how that would look or how it would go, but I certainly think there is still a great deal of 'lacking in salience detail' that can be removed from the later sections.Haberstr (talk) 09:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Some condensation could be included but your previous attempts have deleted far to much while improving far to little, such condensation would require a complete overhaul which would be better started as a draft before replacing existing contentSherzo (talk) 09:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

My other point is that our history of terrorism article should, and hopefully will, deal with how the prevailing meaning of terrorism has meant different things in different eras, so being able to get a general sense of 'the' 'definition' (and its main areas of contention) would help readers as they go through the history sections.Haberstr (talk) 09:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

no thats a job of etymology, which is part of the definition article's remit, would not really help readers as they are approaching it from a modern persceptive, would help POV pushes thoughSherzo (talk) 09:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

This article, in its present form as vigorously defended by you, is both a POV push and a poor quality article (especially considering the importance of the topic) according to our wise recent visitors. I'm trying, in line with those commenters (whose help and advice you've entirely rejected) to broaden the scope of the article in line with the vast majority of well-known scholars, which includes the evolving usage of the always disputed definition.Haberstr (talk) 15:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The article is good quality the only person adding poor quality pov pushing content is you Haberstr, and as another wise editor said your a POV pushing troll

Please refrain from groundless assumption of bad faith. My criticisms have received emphatic support from the visitor Cerejota, and your confusion about what the problems are here might be remedied by re-reading with an open mind what I've written.

This is really getting frustrating. A definition section is needed to begin to give coherence to the article. That was rejected by Sherzo. Underutilized academic sources such as Laqueur were in the definition section removed, by the way. Moving away from being a "history of terrorist groups" (an article that Wikipedia consensus has decided to delete) is needed, but Sherzo canceled my attempts to remove subsection titles that name groups (despite apparent consensus (such as it is) achieved in an earlier discussion subsection). That's where we're at on March 14, 2009: progress blocked.Haberstr (talk) 07:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

No it was to delete history of terrorist groups it was to merge, which actually means we should be looking to incorporate its style and content here, so if it does look like a history of terrorist groups thats actually reflect consensus, you should stop misrepresenting things it only makes you look bad Haberstr —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.183.224 (talk) 13:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

There is a seperate article for definiton there is no need for its repetition here, the article has coherence and doesnt need a definition section. these academic sources would belong on the definition of terrorism article not here. The history of terrorism groups was deleted mainly because it was a repetition of information contained here. What apparant consensus? it serves no purpose to remove the names, it just leaves the content harder to navigate, My suggest which i think your refering to as consensus was that some groups could be combined, onto more general sections on Anarchism and Nationalism Sherzo (talk) 07:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the history section should be chronological and ordered straightforwardly by time periods, as it is now. But the sections need to be much much briefer. The names of all these groups and their exploits is one aspect of a multi-faceted topic and all the other facets are being completely ignored. Also, while early anarchists sometimes described themselves as terrorists, characterizing by title that 'Nationalism' is one 'type' of terrorism definitely gets into POV, and besides nationalism stretches across the entire history of 'terrorism'.Haberstr (talk) 07:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

What facets exactly, do you feel are missing? as for nationalism there is a clear thread as about half the groups in the 19th century section are nationalism based, but if you feel it would be POV to roll these together into one section where are you arguing for itSherzo (talk) 08:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Nearly all groups, in every era, consider themselves nationalist. Many groups, perhaps most, describe themselves in multiple ways, as nationalist, anarchist, socialist, Islamic (or other religion), and so on. We can't make POV distinctions as to which aspect of their self-descriptions are more significant.Haberstr (talk) 09:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I was refering solely to the 19th century section which has 2 entries on race in america, several on anarchism, and several on nationalism in Ireland and the ottomon empire. Sherzo (talk) 10:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes but unless you have a reliable source linking them into those groups its OR or at the least synthesis, and even if you do have a source you'll only get slapped with a POV tag your damned if you do and damned if you don't! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.183.224 (talk) 13:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Cerejota feels that too few "opinions" are being included that there are too few sources, and that these sources represent POV and the sections bias. since we've asked for examples, to no avail i've got some simple question i think you should answer.

• 1 what sources are in your opinion are POV? (though surely all sources represent some POV)
• 2 what specific sections show bias?
• 3 what opinions are missing?
• 4 what sources are missing?

If you can answer these than we can actually address the concerns, but this requires you to actually addresses specifics and read the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.183.224 (talk) 16:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Why does Cerejota need to respond when you can read extensive criticisms on all those points from me in this talk section?Haberstr (talk) 15:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Obviously those in love with "History of terrorist groups" -- and the consensus was that that entry was to be folded into "History of terrorism" and not the other way around -- have decided to replace "History of terrorism" with "History of terorist groups," with all the POV that necessitates. Nearly all the groups in the titles of the various subsections here do not and never have described themselves as 'terrorist groups', and many RS agree with those self-descriptions. All of the previous needs to be acknowledged in an NPOV history of terrorism. In fact, even by a fairly broad definition of terrorism it's clear no stable criteria is being used to give a group the 'honor' of it being the title of a subsection. All of the preceding is obvious, except to those confused about why various experienced outsiders sometimes visit here and tell us of the entry's massive and fundamental POV problems.Haberstr (talk) 20:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

That is pretty much the whole problem with this article. It is a coat rack to criticize groups as terrorist, rather than an encyclopedia article on the history of terrorism as a political and military strategy/tactic.--Cerejota (talk) 18:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)