Talk:Terrorism/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Definition in lede

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

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

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

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

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

violence requirement in definition

use of intentionally indiscriminate violence as a means to create terror

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

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

New paragraph in lead

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

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

"indiscriminate"

I find the use of this term confusing. Terrorism is, in my mind, certainly not "done at random or without careful judgement". The choice to fly two planes into the WTC was certainly not a random choice. The choice to murder people working at Charlie Hebdo in 2015 was a very specific choice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davyker (talk • contribs) 19:43, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Terrorism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090814082429/http://ncua.gov/letters/2002/02-CU-14.pdf to http://www.ncua.gov/letters/2002/02-CU-14.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141015112741/http://www.icct.nl/publications/icct-papers/forecasting-the-unpredictable-a-review-of-forecasts-on-terrorism-2000--2012 to http://www.icct.nl/publications/icct-papers/forecasting-the-unpredictable-a-review-of-forecasts-on-terrorism-2000--2012
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.ciaj-icaj.ca/images/stories/Publications/books/2011-Publicity.eng.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160107215147/http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/publication-type/speeches/2013/jones-terrorism-myths-facts.aspx to http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/publication-type/speeches/2013/jones-terrorism-myths-facts.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141030073538/https://treaties.un.org/Pages/DB.aspx?path=DB%2Fstudies%2Fpage2_en.xml to https://treaties.un.org/Pages/DB.aspx?path=DB%2Fstudies%2Fpage2_en.xml

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:38, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Terrorism and war crimes

I think the two things are separate topics that can sometimes cross each other. Terrorism aims to frighten the civilian population to achieve a political objective, and war crimes are simply violations of code of conduct for waging war. CommanderOzEvolved (talk) 14:42, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

That's one view. Another is that people carrying out the sames crimes in the name of a government should be seen in the same way as people who are not employed by a recognized government. TFD (talk) 00:23, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

It is not clear what you mean TFD. International humanitarian law , draws a distinction between non-combatants, civilians who engage in combat, and combatants. In most cases combatants can legally carry out acts that would but considered a breach of municipal law by an enemy state if that state was not a party to a conflict -- eg bombing an enemy railway station is not a crime under international law. There is a whole article on unlawful combatants, that includes civilians engaged in combat, mercenaries and child soldiers. To weaken the moral of an enemy is considered to be a legitimate military option, the methods used to weaken enemy moral must be within the laws of war. In the case of terrorism it is not a question of the laws of war (unless one is in the Alice in Wonderland area of the Bush War on Terror), it is a question of whether the action is a breach of local municipal law. -- PBS (talk) 21:02, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Again, not every source agrees with that. In any case the article takes no side on the issue but reports the various views in Terrorism#State terrorism. TFD (talk) 00:17, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Your recent edit

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

I hope you realise that terrorism is the world's greatest problem now (you or your city could be the next target)-Karumari (talk) 16:38, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

JamesBWatson, thanks for your advice on my talk page. Can you suggest a way in which we can incorporate those sentences into this article (I am new here)? Thanks in advance for the help!-Karumari (talk) 18:34, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I work in the field of counter-terrorism Karumari. I know the importance of issues and the need for wikipedia to provide a neutral perspective based on reliable sources. Your edits basically too a position, made accusations etc. which is not encyclopaedic in nature. Read up on WP:RS and then raise what you are trying to get across here. I and others will be happy to help. Oh and by the way its around the fifth worst problem the world faces :-) -----Snowded ^TALK 22:28, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I merely copied it from other articles. If it was fine there, why is it unacceptable here (my edit summaries mention which articles)? You only please suggest what we can do to incorporate those sentences into this article. I am new here-Karumari (talk) 08:53, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Karumari, please see WP:INDISCRIMINATE, which is what your last post is doing. You also need to read and understand WP:DUE.

You do not have an inherent privilege to add what you feel like adding to Wikipedia. All edits are subject to WP:CONSENSUS. You need to convince all other editors that the content you wish to see on Wikipedia is appropriate and necessary in the context of the article. I don't see you doing that.

Finally, you need to make sure that you say what the sources say, not your own imagination of what they say. For example: your first sentence: Many terrorist organisations exist in Pakistan and the Government of Pakistan is either unwilling or unable to control them. is sourced to an opinion-column of Owen Bennet-Jones. Where exactly does Bennet-Jones say anything remotely like what you wrote? Please answer that before you proceed. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:26, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

@Karumari: I don't think it's safe to assume that it "was fine there". The article Fatwa on Terrorism is seriously in need of substantial editing to remove clear and unambiguous promotion of a point of view. I may possibly make a start on doing that myself when I have time. Anyone can edit Wikipedia, and it is not safe to assume that just because someone has come along and put something in a Wikipedia article and nobody has yet removed it that it is acceptable. Also, a statement about the government of Pakistan which according to your edit summary you "Copied from the article on fitna" does not appear at all in the page you link to, Fitna; Wikipedia's search facility indicates that it does not appear in any other article; a Google search did not find it anywhere else in the internet. It is possible that it was in some article at the time when you copied it but has since been removed (but not Fitna or Fitna (word), as I have checked the history of those pages). Can you clarify exactly where you did copy it from? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:36, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Please type, "Pakistan is either unable or unwilling to control terrorism" on Google and see if we can use any of those results. I am not sure if I can do that myself, that's why I am requesting you people to check it! Thank you!-Karumari (talk) 10:22, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I already did that after your first edit - mainly press stories reporting what people have said - no third party. That aside you should not be searching out references to support a political statement you want to make -----Snowded ^TALK 10:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@Snowded: So, do you mean that even if it is a fact and we have cited references for those statements you are going to keep removing it? Is there some Wikipedia rule that I am unaware of which disallows political statements?-Karumari (talk) 18:44, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in, but it looks like the reason given for the removal was neutrality and WP:DUE is part of the WP:NPOV policy. If you are new, I suggest reading these policies carefully as you will encounter them a lot. While the content may be excessive or undue detail for this general article, maybe it would be possible to include it on another article like Terrorism in Pakistan. For the Gardet quote dealing with the definition of terrorism we have a separate article Definitions of terrorism. Seraphim System ^(talk) 18:50, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@Karumari: You need to read the various policies you have been linked to. If a newspaper reports that someone makes a claim, we can't make that claim in Wikipedia's voice. For strong assertions such as you made we need to be sure that there is sufficient weight of third party reliable sources to support it. And yes, there are many wikipedia policies that prevent political statements being made as if they are true, although there are contexts in which they can be reported.-----Snowded ^TALK 09:21, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Seraphim System so can we add the sentences Snowded removed, to the article on Terrorism in Pakistan?-Karumari (talk) 14:50, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't know, I have never worked on that article. The best thing would be to ask on the talk page at that article. Seraphim System ^(talk) 16:31, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

The sourcing isn't good enough -----Snowded ^TALK 11:01, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

As a general observation, one should never enter information from articles without providing the proper context. "Many terrorist organisations exist in Pakistan and the Government of Pakistan is either unwilling or unable to control them" could apply to some degree to every country that experiences terrorist attacks. Of course Pakistan also is unique in that it has Pashtun and Baloch territories with militant independence movements, unlike most countries. TFD (talk) 01:22, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I think this was widely reported over and over again for a period of years in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, but it has been long enough that more detailed academic source should be available. The preference would be to summarize the analysis in academic sources (when they are available), rather than cherry pick facts from media sources. I think the sentence TFD highlighted above could possibly be added to Terrorism in Pakistan, but it would depend on reaching a consensus about the balance and sourcing of the content.Seraphim System ^(talk) 01:50, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

Religious terrorism section

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

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

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

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

Motivations section badly organised

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

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 31 August 2019

terrorism is any illegal activity which cause fears, deaths and any other violence Akhmas Karim benzema (talk) 08:21, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.--Goldsztajn (talk) 10:04, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 October 2019

Start the article like this:

Terrorism is an asymmetric warfare military and para-military tactic, in the broadest sense, is defined as the use of intentional violence, generally against civilians, for political purposes. 201.170.180.177 (talk) 22:03, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Not done for now. Please establish a consensus for such a potentially controversial change. Also see WP:OVERCITE, which is just an essay, but might apply here. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:23, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 15 February 2020

In the section "Perpetuators", capitalize the initial letter of the third sentence, which begins with "the most common image of terrorism is that...". 2601:401:C680:4240:7049:ACB4:C443:4D1D (talk) 00:32, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done RudolfRed (talk) 01:07, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2020

Change URL of citation [11] from: https://mackenzieinstitute.com/illusion-war-terrorism-criminal-act-act-war/ to: https://mackenzieinstitute.com/2014/08/the-illusion-of-war-is-terrorism-a-criminal-act-or-an-act-of-war/ to fix it, the link is broken. Zirconcode (talk) 16:25, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

@Zirconcode:  Done - thank you! GoingBatty (talk) 22:46, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Remove Mental Disorders as a Cause of Terrorism

Ok so I believe I have enough evidence to remove this outright but I think it might cause controversy and I cannot adequately justify it in the edit description.

Under Personal and Social Factors in Causes and Motivations, Mental Disorders are included. This is a common perception through which we rationalise terrorism, but it isn’t supported by research. The scientific consensus is that mental disorders are not significantly related with engaging in terrorism, but rather engaging in terrorism makes them more likely to develop. Equally, the incidence of a mental disorder in those committing acts of terrorism is not necessarily a causative factor.

Incidence of Mental Disorders are notably more frequent in lone-wolf terrorism, however it is not proven to be a causative factor. A significant link between mental disorders and terrorism is if the spouse/partner is associated with extreme ideologies, suggesting it isn’t the mental disorder that causes the terrorist activity.

See the below articles for more info.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14661388/ https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2014-33751-001.html https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5288096/#__ffn_sectitle Editor/123 10:10, 30 April 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben8142 (talk • contribs)

It's better to use a secondary source, such as a textbook on terrorism, because different scholars can come to different conclusions and we need to know how accepted their opinions are. I appreciate that the claim only applies to lone wolf terrorists or tiny groups. TFD (talk) 14:53, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Short suffragette terrorism paragraph in the history of terrorism section

This was all just a time sink orchestrated by a sock with some strange hangups. Drmies (talk) 15:14, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@Snowded: please explain why suffragette attacks should not be referred to in the history of terrorism section. AmSam13 (talk) 12:37, 9 August 2020 (UTC) Does anyone apart from Simon Webb call them terrorists? He's a prolific author, but not an academic historian as far as I can tell, and the first page of Google results for the phrase 'Suffragette terrorism' is exclusively stuff he's written pushing that view, Peter Hitchens (!) half-way agreeing with him, and academic historians disagreeing with it. I think we would want to see a consensus amongst scholars describing it as terrorism before adding anything to this article; if it is a contested view, it might be worth adding something to Suffragette about the opposing views; if it's just one writer who thinks this, then per WP:FRINGE we don't mention it. GirthSummit (blether) 12:48, 9 August 2020 (UTC) As one of AmSAM13's source says the issue of if they were or were not terrorists is controversial and we should not speak in wikipedia's voice. More generally this is not a list of all terrorists of all time, so the onus is on AmSam13 to show why the Suffragette's are signiicant enough to include here -----Snowded TALK 12:54, 9 August 2020 (UTC) Quick source search: this explicitly calls the view that they were terrorists "controversial"; this rebuts the idea, pointing out that they never killed anyone and that when they were tried, the charges were for property damage not terrorism; this and this discuss the issue without using the words terrorism or terrorist; this I don't have access to, but the words aren't in the abstract. On the face of it, I'd suggest that it is at least a controversial view, which would be better discussed at Suffragette rather than here, and possibly not at all if we can only identify one author who describes them in those terms. GirthSummit (blether) 13:01, 9 August 2020 (UTC) Concur, hence my reverting the original edit -----Snowded TALK 13:04, 9 August 2020 (UTC) Webb also writes on historical matters for The Times educational Supplement, Daily Telegraph and The Guardian. I don't understand what source you're referring to which supposedly states that the issue of if they were or were not terrorists is controversial... you surley cannot mean the British Library source, which states "...their choice to turn to violent and extreme actions" is "what we would define today as ‘terrorism’" and "these attacks were specifically designed to terrorise the government and the general public to change their opinions on women’s suffrage – not by choice, but by threats and acts of violence". I think that's about as clear as possible as to whether they committed terrorism acts. As to whether anyone other than Simon Webb calls them terrorists, I would point you to the following sources: Academic: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3490924?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents; C.J. Bearman calls them terrorists, stating "The intention of the campaign was certainly terrorist in terms of the word's definition, which according to the Concise Oxford Dictionary (1990 edition) is 'a person who uses or favours violent and intimidating methods of coercing a government or community'. The intention of coercing the community is clearly expressed in the WSPU's Seventh Annual Report, and, according to Annie Kenney, that of coercing Parliament was endorsed by Emmeline and Christabel Pankhurst themselves. The question is therefore not whether the campaign was terrorist, or whether the WSPU (in I9I2-I4) can be called a terrorist organization, but whether its terrorism worked". https://www.historyextra.com/period/edwardian/books-interview-with-fern-riddell-can-we-call-the-suffragettes-terrorists-absolutely/: Interview with historian Fern Riddell who specialises in gender, sex, suffrage and Victorian culture. She states in the interview that we should "absolutely" call the suffragettes terrorists, as "we’re talking about a hugely skilled and highly organised group, whose actions – bombing, arson, acid attacks – clearly match up with what we understand as terrorism today and what was understood as terrorism 100 years ago. Newspapers were actually calling it ‘Suffragette Terrorism’ at the time". C.J. Bearman has also published other articles calling them terrorists, such as this: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/historical-journal/article/an-army-without-discipline-suffragette-militancy-and-the-budget-crisis-of-1909/65FB0871FF45C2F99D867AB3C599EE75/core-reader Rebecca Walker: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03058034.2019.1687222. She not only calls them terrorists but, significantly, refers to their campaigns as being part of 'early terrorism in the City of London', and since this talk page discussion is concerned with whether there should be a mention of suffragette attacks in the terrorism in the early 20th century section, this shows that there is relevance in including suffragette attacks in the section on early terrorism. Diane Atkinson describes the suffragettes "reign of terror" in this book: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Rise-Up-Women-Remarkable-Suffragettes/dp/1408844044 Dr Rachel Monaghan: https://pure.coventry.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/28441849/Single_Issue_Terrorism.pdf Then obviously you have Simon Webb and Peter Hitchens as well. Other news articles: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-44210012 - more about Fern Riddell's classification of suffragettes as terrorists https://www.latrobe.edu.au/news/articles/2016/opinion/militant-suffragettes-or-terrorists states "nevertheless, their actions satisfy common definitions of "terrorism". The Australian Criminal Code, for example, defines a terrorist act as an action done with the intention of coercing and intimidating a government that causes serious damage to people or property." https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/politics/story-young-hot-bloods-secret-terrorist-wing-suffragettes/ https://www.historytoday.com/history-matters/sanitising-suffragettes https://www.historyextra.com/period/20th-century/were-the-suffragettes-terrorists/ The original reason that I think a paltry 3-sentence-short (!) note should be included in the history of terrorism section is because the Fenian Dynamite campaign is included to provide an overview of early terrorism, yet that campaign did not result in a single death. The suffragette campaign did result in deaths and thus it is more significant than the Fenian campaign, obviously the Fenian campaign needs to be included because it is rightly stated in the wiki article that "arguably the first organization to utilize modern terrorist techniques was the Irish Republican Brotherhood", but if that is there then I think it is right to have the more deadly suffragette campaign. Secondly, the suffragette campaigns should be noted in the history of terrorism section since they were ground-breaking and historically important events: the suffragettes were the first to utilise letter bombs and the first notable group in Great Britain which targeted citizens in its own country (obviously excluding the Irish attacks on Great Britain), and the suffragette movement is rightly considered as being a pivotal point in the development of feminism and, most importantly, in the granting of women's suffrage. Furthermore, the attacks by the suffragettes were pivotal forerunners to the IRA terror campaigns later in the 20th century, with many of their tactics being adopted by the IRA. Overall, there seems to be no clear reason why 3 sentences about the suffragette movement should not be included here, considering it was a historically important development in the history of terrorism. AmSam13 (talk) 14:08, 9 August 2020 (UTC) The main article avoids any use of the word so I have placed a notice there asking for others to get engaged here. Asserting they were pivotal forerunners to the IRA seems dubious. Several of the references you quote above also make the point that this a controversial issue. There are anyway two questions (i) were they terrorists (and there is some support for that in your references) and (ii) were they pivotal in the sense you mean it (necessary to insert the paragraph here) and I see nothing to support that which seems to be your opinion -----Snowded TALK 14:14, 9 August 2020 (UTC) Yes but what you are trying to do is to airbrush these attacks out of other pages, even on ones where (as other editors have pointed out) the attacks have been listed under terrorist incidents for a considerable length of time, such as List of terrorist incidents in London. In all honesty if you want to leave the small paragraph that already existed here in the history of terrorism section then fine, but please do not remove the lists of attacks when you yourself have admitted that I have provided evidence which does support the idea that they were terrorists. AmSam13 (talk) 14:21, 9 August 2020 (UTC) We have to balance the various sources so I have simply put things back to how they were before you started making changes so we can resolve this. No one is airbrushing anything so please stop suggesting that we are simply engaged in resolving an issue as a community. I have also invited other editors to take part who will have a view. I repeat (i) if they are terrorists is one question - evidence exists but is disputed so we discuss (ii) if they were pivotal in subsequent IRA campaigns and for that you have provided no evidence. -----Snowded TALK 14:29, 9 August 2020 (UTC) I suggest anyone believing the Suffragettes were pivotal in influencing the IRA reads Fenian dynamite campaign. FDW777 (talk) 14:34, 9 August 2020 (UTC) The edits I have made on the list of terrorist incidents in London page only expanded on previous entries which described suffragette attacks, so if you are gong to remove mine then you will have to remove other users long-standing edits as well. On page xi of Simon Webb's The Suffragette Bombers, he states "The combination of high explosive bombs, incendiary devices and letter bombs used by the suffragettes provided the pattern for the IRA campaigns of the 1970s and 1980s. Indeed, the first terrorist bomb to explode in Northern Ireland in the twentieth century, at Lisburn’s Christ Church Cathedral, was detonated not by the IRA, but by the suffragettes in August 1914". AmSam13 (talk) 14:35, 9 August 2020 (UTC) Whether or not the suffragette incidents are historically significant enough to be included on the terrorism article, I think there is sufficient grounds for it to be included on list of terrorist incidents in London.Beevor54 (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2020 (UTC) Possibly but we need to determine if the community consensus is that they were terrorist or not before inserting them in a list with that name -----Snowded TALK 14:44, 9 August 2020 (UTC) The lead on the list of terrorist incidents in London states "this is a list of incidents in London that have been labelled as "terrorism"." As we have seen, suffragette attacks have been labelled as terrorism by some, including at least 7 historians. Therefore their existence (I will not say addition as I have already stated that I only expanded on pre-existing long-standing entries on that page) is entirely relevant on that particular wiki. AmSam13 (talk) 14:49, 9 August 2020 (UTC) And so we discuss - the fact that the main article does not use the word is significant and the use of said word is nearly always controversial so we have to be careful. Creating a whole section and expanding a few entries is a significant change so I have restored the older version pending resolution. -----Snowded TALK 14:52, 9 August 2020 (UTC) What main article are you talking about? AmSam13 (talk) Suffragette and I have placed a notice there to make editors aware of this discussion. In the mean time do you have any evidence to support your IRA linkage? -----Snowded TALK 15:07, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Dubious paragraph

At Terrorism#Non-state groups there is the following paragraph

According to the Global Terrorism Database, the most active terrorist group in the period 1970 to 2010 was Shining Path (with 4,517 attacks), followed by Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front (FMLN), Irish Republican Army (IRA), Basque Fatherland and Freedom (ETA), Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), Taliban, Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, New People's Army, National Liberation Army of Colombia (ELN), and Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK).

References

As much as I hate to refer to it as some kind of league table, the IRA (the Provisional IRA, although during the same time period the Official IRA, Continuity IRA and Real IRA were also active to varying extents) are listed in 4th with 2673 attacks resulting in 1807 deaths. I'm aware it's the Global Terrorism Database's figure, but the only reasonable conclusion that can be drawn from that is that the database is woefully incomplete. IRA, The Bombs and the Bullets: A History of Deadly Ingenuity by A.R. Oppenheimer (ISBN 978-0716528951) page 28 states in 1972 alone the IRA were responsible for 1300 bombings (and that's bombings alone, it doesn't include shootings). Brits by Peter Taylor (ISBN 0-7475-5806-X) page 84 states that between July and December 1971 the British Army had 1932 rounds fired at it by the IRA just in the city of Derry, as well as 180 nail bombs and having to deal with 211 explosions in the city during the same period. The Provisional IRA in England: The Bombing Campaign 1973–1997 by Gary McGladdery (ISBN 9780716533733) page 3 states the IRA's campaign in England (which didn't begin until 1973, so not part of the 1972 figures) amounted 488 incidents (some of these were hoax incidents designed to cause disruption, I can provided a figure for the hoaxes if needed but I'd guess 400 is a conservative estimate for the number of attacks) causing 115 deaths. For 2673 attacks to be correct you'd have to figure they did nothing anywhere else for the rest of the time, which obviously isn't the case. The CAIN database gives a total, for the Troubles as a whole, of 36923 shooting incidents, 16209 bombings and 2225 incendiary bombings. Obviously as the figure is for the Troubles as a whole they weren't all the responsibility of the IRA. But even if we were to set the bar really, really, really low and say they were responsible for 10% (which most people would agree is an insanely low percentage) they'd still be responsible for more than the 4517 attacks attributed to Shining Path.

Are we really benefiting the reader by including data that's obviously incorrect? FDW777 (talk) 08:01, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Well its not really out place to challenge sources :-) It does reference the source. Is there a reference which says its inaccurate as a list? -----Snowded ^TALK 09:52, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:REDFLAG says they can be, if they are making claims that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions. If you asked any Troubles academic if 2673 IRA attacks out of a total of over 50000 attacks during the Troubles is an accurate figure, they'd laugh you out of the room. There is the GTD database for 1972. They have a total of 568 incidents (up from the 496 incidents at the time File:Terrorist incidents worldwide.svg was created) worldwide, not just Northern Ireland, and it includes loyalist attacks as well as the IRA since the second entry on the list is an Ulster Volunteer Force attack. The CAIN figures already mentioned show this figure of 568 is too low. "Table NI-SEC-06: Security related incidents (number) in Northern Ireland (only), shootings, bombings, and incendiaries, 1969 to 2003" gives a total of 10,631 shooting incidents (possibly including the Army, so not all terrorist incidents) and 1853 bombs used (of which 1382 exploded and 471 were defused). As also already mentioned A.R. Oppenheimer says the IRA were responsible for 1300 bombings in 1972. So a worldwide total of 568 terrorist incidents for 1972 is simply wrong, as CAIN's figures show. Garbage in, garbage out. FDW777 (talk) 11:07, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Ed Moloney's A Secret History of the IRA page 112 With its ranks swollen by the anger at Bloody Sunday and other instances of state violence, the IRA carried out twelve hundred operations in May 1972, many of them in rural areas, and more the following month. Depending on how you choose to quantify "more the following month" in just 2 months of 1972 you're pretty close to the 2673 attacks the database attributes to the IRA over a 30 year period. I propose to remove the offending paragraph, since it's totally inaccurate. FDW777 (talk) 15:59, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm just a page watcher with very little knowledge of this topic, but "more the following month" sounds like it just means additional operations in the following month, not upwards of 1,200 operations in the following month. If it was really 1,200 operations in May and 1,300 or 1,400 operations in June, then I'm fairly certain that the source would lead with that.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:07, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

OK, I'll concede that reference could mean that. However that doesn't change all the others provided that prove the IRA committed far more than 2673 attacks during its armed campaign. If the IRA only carried out 2673 of the 50,000+ documented attacks during The Troubles, then who was responsible for the other 47,000+? That's a rhetorical question by the way, I already know the answer. Terrorism and Modern Literature: From Joseph Conrad to Ciaran Carson by Alex Houen says Between 1968 and 1999 there were 3,289 deaths caused by the Troubles, with more than 35,000 shootings, 15,000 bombings, and over 40,000 people wounded . . . On the Republican side, the IRA has been the largest and most active paramilitary organization to play a part in the conflict. FDW777 (talk) 21:16, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Also as I've already stated the GTD database for 1972 only contains 568 incidents for all organisations worldwide. So even accepting that the reference doesn't necessarily mean "upwards of 1,200 operations" in the following month there's still the major hurdle of the reference saying there were 1,200 operations in May 1972 alone, when the GTD database only contains 568 incidents for all organisations worldwide for the entire year. FDW777 (talk) 21:31, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

The table is taken from "The Global Terrorism Database, 1980-2010" by Gary LaFree and Laura Dugan, pp. 17-19. Before rejecting it because it conflicts we other sources, we should try to determine if we are comparing apples and oranges. Is the source wrong, or is it merely counting attacks differently? TFD (talk) 21:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

As above, it's a database that only contains 568 incidents worldwide for the entire of 1972. That's less than half of the incidents attributed to the IRA in May 1972 alone. FDW777 (talk) 21:36, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I've done a little checking. By sorting by country it's possible to group all the UK incidents together. They can be seen here, here, here, and here. For all the incidents that occurred in the United Kingdom there are fatalities listed, except for some incidents attributed to Black September where there were no fatalities or injuries (see here, here and here for example, there are more). So while the GTD database has included all fatal attacks in the United Kingdom that year, they've completely left out all the bombings and shootings in Northern Ireland where there were no fatalities (I don't like to speculate why, but since there were so many that's perhaps understandable). As well as Black September, there's also these (0 fatalities starts after the "Unknowns"), these, and these without fatalities. So it's clear there's no obvious inclusion criteria. As stated I don't want to speculate why the data is incomplete, but I hope it's obvious to people that the data is incomplete. FDW777 (talk) 21:59, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I can't find any the original source for Oppenheimer's figure of 1.300 bombings in 1972. His footnote says, Ryder, A special form of Courage, p. 50, but I don't have access to that book. What's the original source for this statistic? TFD (talk) 22:27, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

the page 28 text is referenceed to the CAIN website. Possibly this page which gives the Police Service of Northern Ireland figures (Table NI-SEC-06: Security related incidents (number) in Northern Ireland (only), shootings, bombings, and incendiaries, 1969 to 2003, approximately half way down the page). For 1972 they list 1382 bomb explosions and 471 bombs defused, for a total of 1853 bombs deployed. And in the same table they include 10,631 shooting incidents for 1972. FDW777 (talk) 22:37, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I can't find the original police report, but there is one for 1 June 2018 to 31 May 2019 on its website.[1] Note that these are not broken down by who was responsible. It seems though that the methodology explains the difference. The GTD total is for incidents it was able to document from publicly available sources. Probably there is no information available about most of the bombings in NI.

It is not however unreasonable to claim that Shining Path was more active than the IRA. It was an insurgency that controlled large parts of Peru.

TFD (talk) 23:13, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

CAIN haven't just made it up, you can read about them at Conflict Archive on the Internet. You're also admitting that the article is wrong, since it attributes 4,517 attacks to Shining Path. If they were more active than the IRA, a figure ten times this would be required. If a reference that has said they are more active please provide it, the GTD conclusion has been drawn from data that is demonstrably incomplete and should be disregarded. FDW777 (talk) 07:20, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I didn't say CAIN made it up, I agreed they took it from the Northern Ireland Police Service, although I cannot find the 1972 report online. As I pointed out, the GTD lists cases that have been publicly documented, which is a smaller set than official police figures. So the GTD figures are not wrong and can be used to compare the relative activity of various terrorist groups. Regardless of what sources are used, why do you have a problem with the statement that the Shining Path was the most active terrorist group from 1970 to 2010? TFD (talk) 01:13, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I have a problem, as the "reference" (and I use that term loosely) isn't making an objective judgement about the relative activity of different groups. Their list is labelled as sourced from the Global Terrorism Database

1. Shining Path 4517 attacks
2. Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front (FMLN) 3357 attacks
3. Irish Republican Army 2673 attacks
4. Basque Fatherland and Freedom 2005 attacks
5. Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia 1888 attacks
6. Taliban 1783 attacks
7. Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam 1599 attacks
8. New People's Army 1282 attacks
9. National Liberation Army of Colombia 1267 attacks
10. Kurdistan Workers' Party 1190 attacks

Although the figures have changed slightly (or substantially in relation to groups still active) since the publication, those are broadly the same as the current figures.

1. Shining Path 4563 attacks (+46)
2. Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front 3351 attacks (-6)
3. Irish Republican Army 2669 attacks (-4)
4. Basque Fatherland and Freedom 2024 attacks (+19)
5. Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia 2507 attacks (+619)
6. Taliban 8789 attacks (+6,901)
7. Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam 1607 attacks (+8)
8. New People's Army 3067 attacks (+1,785)
9. National Liberation Army of Colombia 1735 attacks (+468)
10. Kurdistan Workers' Party 2455 attacks (+1,265)

Now other than the still active groups, the figures have changed very little. But as established, the data being used to make that judgement is not complete. Just looking at the 1972 figures alone, IRA incidents that did not result in deaths have been completely excluded when the figures for other groups do include non-fatal incidents. Are we honestly expected to believe the figures for FARC and the Tamil Tigers are correct? That FARC were only responsible for 1,888 attacks between 1970 and 2005 despite being permanently active during that time? Ditto the Tamil Tigers, they were active for the majority of the time yet we are expected to believe they only committed 1,599 attacks? The GTD database is incomplete, that much has been established beyond any doubt. If all you do is go the database and look up totals you aren't using knowledge or judgement, it's garbage in, garbage out. FDW777 (talk) 21:32, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

As I explained, the database is of attacks that were publicly reported. There will always be a problem in comparisons because police stats may be unavailable, incomplete or inaccurate. TFD (talk) 21:47, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

"incomplete or inaccurate" being the whole of the problem. The GTD's database of incidents for the first 10 days of 1972 contains one incident attributed to the IRA, the death of a soldier called Keith Bryan. CAIN's 1972 chronology says on 3 January The Irish Republican Army (IRA) exploded a bomb in Callender Street, Belfast, which injured over 60 people. The British Newspaper Archive confirms this bombing occurred, and made the national press (Daily Mirror, and I have little doubt others not included in that archive). The failure to include that bombing (and that's just the first one on the list for 1972, I have little doubt the pattern will be repeated again and again) cannot be excused away as police statistics not being available can it? FDW777 (talk) 22:04, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Bloody Saturday, Shanghai.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:24, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2021

Remove "usually intended to influence an audience" from content 3.3. Source 41 does not contain the latter part of the definition in question. SupePizza (talk) 16:32, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

To editor SupePizza:  done, and thank you very much, good catch! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 17:13, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 July 2021

I have some new information ion this i want to share Primegamercool (talk) 16:02, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:23, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Solmate95. Peer reviewers: M903.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Please add more photos related to Terrorism

Please add more photos related to Terrorism, just adding 911 WTC looks like you are talking about western hemisphere only.2400:ADC1:11A:5600:DA40:F3B4:19EF:B478 (talk) 08:34, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

There are already several non-western hemisphere photos down the article, such as Bologna massacre, 2002 Finnish bombing, Beslan school siege, KIng David hotel bombing, Islamabad hotel bombing, etc. Just scroll down. Brandmeister^talk 14:08, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Dubious first sentence

This is a pretty weak first sentence:

"Terrorism is, in the broadest sense, the use of intentional violence to achieve political aims."

This would make all war "terrorism", which might be a reasonable opinion, but does not at all reflect how the term is actually used.

Myself, I don't think backing up and explaining some context fixes the fact that the topic sentence doesn't work.

The lead sentence of the second paragraph should probably be the first sentence:

"There are various different definitions of terrorism, with no universal agreement about it."

Wikipedia should not be be endorsing a definition for a term that doesn't really have one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:5b20:15a0:5ce3:c3d5:1326:c838 (talk • contribs) 16:12, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

"XXX is a terrorist" is often used by states indiscriminately for political reasons to achieve that the organization or movement will not gain support by the public. Such strategy is called name calling, a form of a logical fallacy. For example it is used against Anarchists, even though their aim is to create a society that aims for mutual aid and is against oppressive hierarchy. They put them on the same level of right-wing extremist terrorist, which sole aim is to spread fear and destruction so their ideology full of hatred is a step closer to being fulfilled.

This is why I also think, that "Terrorism, in the broadest sense, the use of intentional violence to achieve political aims." is pretty much non-sense and non-objective (personal POV of whoever wrote that), because to them, state violence apparently does not exist or if that sentence is to be included, you would also need to list war crimes by states to make the claim more neutral.

By the way I condemn terrorism.

I've just looked at the re-written sentence "Terrorism, in its broadest sense, is the use of violence and fear to achieve an ideological aim.", which still is kind of not neutral nor is technical correct, as state also calls Anarchists terrorist, which would make the definition inaccurate.

DefendingFree (talk) 12:52, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Submitted

Sub 185.69.186.49 (talk) 19:02, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2022

Request to add Government negotiation with terrorists under the section Terrorism#See_also. 223.25.74.34 (talk) 15:13, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Aidan9382 _(talk) 17:51, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Bias

The article shows an image of (the incredibly rare) Jewish-Israeli terror attacks, while mentioning no picture of the Palestinian terror, which is a thousand time more common. This creates the false view that these are equivalent, or even that the Israeli terror is worst. Please correct.

2A00:A040:197:1220:619A:96AC:E9D4:FB19 (talk) 2A00:A040:197:1220:619A:96AC:E9D4:FB19 (talk) 21:38, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Do you have any picture you recommend? TFD (talk) 22:24, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

No, the current selection is not biased. Palestinian resistance to the illegal and violent Israeli occupation of their lands is not "terrorism". And please include sources if you're going to claim that Palestinian terrorism is "a thousand time more common". --222.152.26.143 (talk) 10:32, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

"List of terrorists" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect List of terrorists has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 26 § List of terrorists until a consensus is reached. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:01, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

NPOV regarding Palestinian Terrorism

The article lacks any meaningful description of Palestinian terrorism. Notably lacking is any reference, what-so-ever, to the Second Intifada which claimed more than 1,000 victims in over a hundred bombings. The absence of any mention of the second intifada, one of the most significant terrorist campaigns of the modern era, is only one example to demonstrate that the weight given to Palestinian terrorism in this article is absurdly low. This in stark contrast to "Zionist"/Jewish terrorism, which is repeatedly mentioned in the article despite being all-in-all much less common than Palestinian terrorism. Case in point: the article features two photos from scenes of Zionist/Jewish terrorist attacks, one from 2014 and one from 1946. It doesn't feature any photos from scenes of Palestinian terrorist attacks. Considering Palestinian terrorist attacks are much more common and have claimed significantly more lives, having two pictures of Jewish/Zionist attacks and zero of Palestinian terrorism is a clear violation of NPOV.

Here's a picture I suggest using to replace the 1946 King David Hotel bombing picture: https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/File:Autobus_v_Haif%C4%9B.jpg

The article states "Israel has had problems with Jewish religious terrorism even before independence in 1948. During British mandate over Palestine, the Irgun were among the Zionist groups labelled as terrorist organisations by the British authorities and United Nations", under the section "Religious terrorism". However, the Irgun was a secular movement. The "Religious terrorism" section does not describe Hamas's terrorist activities, which are explicitly religious (in contrast to the PLO), which is a deviation from the weight given to the much rarer Zionist (which is not inherently religious) or Jewish terrorism.

I suggest significantly expanding the scope of description of Palestinian terrorism to include a review of key aspects such as bombing campaigns against civilian targets during the second intifada and indiscriminate rocket and artillery fire at Israeli towns. PolypeptideChain (talk) 22:58, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

"Mixed, unstable or unclear"

The category of "mixed, unstable or unclear" motives for terrorism has cropped up in the last few years, and is defined as "a combination of elements from multiple ideologies (mixed), shifts between different ideologies (unstable), or where the individual does not present a coherent ideology yet may still be vulnerable to being drawn into terrorism (unclear)." Would it fall under the Terrorism#Personal and social factors section, given many reported under the category appear to be lone wolves? Some citations for it:

• "User guide to: Individuals referred to and supported through the Prevent Programme, England and Wales". Home Office.
• Barry Richards (2021-12-07). "Mental health and terrorism: more people flagged to authorities have 'mixed, unstable, unclear' views than Islamist ideologies". The Conversation.
• "New Prevent Statistics warn of increase in young men becoming fixated on violent extremism". Counter Terrorism Policing. 2020-11-27.
• "NZSIS's first unclassified threat assessment targets competition, public trust, technology". RNZ. 2023-08-11.
• Lewys Brace, Stephane J. Baele & Debbie Ging (2023-06-26). "Where do 'mixed, unclear, and unstable' ideologies come from? A data-driven answer centred on the incelosphere". Journal of Policing, Intelligence and Counter Terrorism.

Deepred6502 (talk) 01:39, 14 August 2023 (UTC)