Talk:Terrorism

Controversial Definitions Section

The "Controversial Definitions" section is supported by a single citation. That citation is a highly specialized, specific, and individualized point of view by a single Israeli Army general. In no way does this citation support even the notion of general "controversy" in the definition of "Terrorism." I'd like to begin a discussion about striking the section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnadams11 (talk • contribs) 03:53, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Causes section

"Ending perceived government oppression" can be changed to "Ending perceived government oppression (for example Suffragette bombing and arson campaign.

References

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:d591:5f10:316e:b09b:a12a:56ad (talk • contribs) 17:58, 17 July 2021 (UCT)

Combining "Historical background" and "History" section

To me, this is a no-brainer, but given the scope of the edit I thought it best to just gauge opinions. It seems the "Historical background" and "History" sections cover essentially the same information, so I propose we incorporate all the information in the "History" section into the "Historical background" section, retaining the latter subheading. Yr Enw (talk) 06:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

• Comment (Summoned by bot) why is this an RfC? It doesn't seem from the question that there's been in any previous contention regarding this? If not then this is a waste of resources making an RfC about it. Just be bold and do it and come back if and when there is disagreement, or better yet just have a normal discussion first. TarnishedPath^talk 08:34, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks. My hesitation was given how large a change it is to the structure of the article, but will follow your advice. Yr Enw (talk) 08:39, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Yr Enw I'd suggest removing the RfC template. If there's a revert have a discussion to see if you can come to consensus before thinking about an RfC again. TarnishedPath^talk 08:56, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

"Historical Background" section example request

Someone requested an example for the line:

"Most scholars[example needed] today trace the origins of the modern tactic of terrorism to the Jewish Sicarii Zealots who attacked Romans and Jews in 1st-century Palestine."

I can find mentions of this in the book "The History of Terrorism: From Antiquity to Al Qaeda" by G Chaliand, A Blin. This particular source seems to have a lot of credibility, and has also been widely cited, but I'm not sure about "most scholars". However, if only a particular example was required, then perhaps we should add a citation?

IsfahanKaAasmaan (talk) 21:00, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I thought it was already cited. Ben Azura (talk) 17:32, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

"Famous terrorists" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Famous 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/2024 February 22 § Famous terrorists until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 22:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

"Demographics of terrorism" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Demographics of terrorism 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/2024 February 22 § Demographics of terrorism until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 22:27, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

No mention of Algeria?

The Algerian revolution was one of the first cases of the use of the term terrorism to justify the actions taken by the French military, to directly quote the article on the Algerian war "the mission of the French Army was "ensuring security", "maintaining order" and "pacification" (...) The FLN were referred to as "criminals", "bandits", "outlaws", "terrorists" and "fellagha"." The mention in this article as terrorism only being widely used after the 70s is highly misleading for this reason. I feel like this merits at least more than a passing mention. Hexifi (talk) 02:07, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Controversial Definitions

• What I think should be changed: This section should be deleted.
• Why it should be changed: The conceit of this section is based in one article that does not remotely support what the section argues. The paragraph seeks to suggest some broad "controversy" over the definition of the term "terrorism." The single citation is a study of a single army general, and that particular general's struggle with the term. One person's point of view would not itself create "controversy" around a common definition. If there was perhaps a more scopey academic study with this thesis, then perhaps the view could be supported.
• References supporting the possible change:

Johnadams11 (talk) 00:54, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

 Not done. Please obtain consensus for your proposed edit. TarnishedPath^talk 09:54, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I have sought to do this on this very page. Sadly, I don't think there's much interest here one way or the other. What is the process for these kinds of changes, on a page that doesn't seem to attract much interest? Johnadams11 (talk) 16:05, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

References

Inconsistent Spelling?

I noticed the article uses the term "mujaheddin":

More recently, Ronald Reagan and others in the American administration frequently called the mujaheddin "freedom fighters" during the Soviet–Afghan War

This seems like a misspelling of Mujahideen, or at the very least it is distractingly inconsistent as the term Mujahideen is used elsewhere in the article. 212.139.35.185 (talk) 14:11, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

See Also Section

Please consider adding a link to War Crimes in the ‘See Also’ section. UniversalHumanTranscendence (talk) 03:37, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Streamlining the modern era section

The current flow of the modern era section is a bit convoluted. It starts with the Irish (1858) then the zionist paramilitary fighting the British mandate (1920-1948) then goes to Russia (1878), Austria (1898) and Russia (1920) again before getting be back to the zionist fighting the mandate again.

It is clear that the second paragraph is misplaced in chronological order and therefore should be moved. We can make the reading more streamlined if we merge the second paragraph "Decades later, ..." with the paragraph starting with "In the period of the ". ThothOfTheSouth (talk) 04:42, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@Sean.hoyland what is the next step? It doesn't seem like there is any concern with my change. ThothOfTheSouth (talk) 02:31, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

It can take a while for people to notice comments and respond. Anyway, in this case I've made the edit but retained the citations. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:44, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, understood. The citation requires separate discussion as it is not about streamlining but about quality of citation. I will open a separate edit request for that. ThothOfTheSouth (talk) 05:01, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the sourcing is not great. I imagine there are plenty of decent history books covering this. Sean.hoyland (talk) 07:32, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I couldn't find a book reference to support the claim, I did find (using AI) that the tactics used by both were similar (ambush, sabotage, etc.) But that's a generic statement about terrorism that can applied to many terror groups coming up after the Irish. Even the Irish were probably inspired by some pre-modern era techniques. So given we don't have good references to support the claim and that this is a generic statement that can be applied anywhere else in the section with any other group, what is the appropriate way to handle? ThothOfTheSouth (talk) 22:39, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I totally agree with you and that Irish part should be removed but a Hebrew editor has removed the total section which I so painstakingly sourced just because he doesn't agree with it and wants to whitewash his history. He isn't even neutral at all. Nohorizonss (talk) 11:41, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

The information is sourced. Bro The Man (talk) 12:19, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

If it's sourced then could you add the whole section which was removed Nohorizonss (talk) 12:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't very familiar with the rules and I edited it despite having 400 edits and not 500+ so I don't want to edit this before being extended confirmed Nohorizonss (talk) 12:24, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I do find a consensus with you, but I feel limited to expressing it on the talk page. Someone requested a discussion-consensus on your additions of which, despite being resourced, touch on the Israel Palestine conflict and that is currently site wide topic locked under WP:ARBPIA, allowing only extended confirmed editors. I can't do anything, I don't have extended confirmed. I'm only allowed 1 revert per 24hrs which is useless for you as the reverters are admins, and they're forced to listen when someone demands a discussion to find consensus.

Even if I could, I wouldn't want to fall into the trap of edit warring, which seems the case here. Take a deep breath, you still have the option of both finding consensus by starting a new topic and micro editing around the WP:ARBPIA topic. Bro The Man (talk) 12:57, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

No I don't want to and won't do edit warring at all because I am not extended confirmed so I guess that extended confirmed users need to start a new discussion consensus but I do want to add that the person who requested it is sus and may be a sockpuppet Nohorizonss (talk) 13:09, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

you don't need extended confirm to make an edit request and discuss it. Copy paste your edits into the new topic, titled "Edit Request: etc...".

Although, you do need an extended request to discuss WP:ARBPIA topics outside of edit requests. And no, I wasn't referring to you regarding edit warring. There are some topics (especially big hot topics) that have their people, so you should find yours and interact in those spaces. You'll find less resistance and a more enjoyable time. Also, wikipedia is also segmented by language and the politics of those language identities, and this is english wiki and its politics does reflect the offline world. I hope that helps. Bro The Man (talk) 13:26, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@Bro The Man, I think the History section needs a serious overhaul as other suggested on this page before. The time spans (pre-modern ending before 1850, and modern era ending at 1980) don't make a lot of sense and many major terror incidents and organizations were not mentioned. I understand you don't want to lose your change, this makes sense to me. I am not sure which parts exactly you added citations to but perhaps starting a more focuses page would be more appropriate and easier to defend? ThothOfTheSouth (talk) 01:30, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

the same editor has a history of disruptive whitewashiny on Sabra and shatila massacre too Nohorizonss (talk) 11:53, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

In line with this thought, there seems to be a repeating theme in the edit history of a concerted effort to include this passage in the modern error section:

"

Decades later, the guerrilla tactics used by the Irish revolutionaries against the British be closely studied and their experiences drawn on by Zionist paramilitary groups during their fight against British rule in Mandatory Palestine.

"

Additionally, despite the the message of the clause the sources themselves are:

[ 'It's part of our psyche': why Ireland sides with 'underdog' Palestine ] The Guardian

[ What's behind Ireland's support for Palestine? ] Al-Jazeera

Which i found profoundly entertaining. Bro The Man (talk) 19:05, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Eitherway ... I don't know if I'm brave enough to add this page on my watchlist, lest my blood pressure can handle it lmao Bro The Man (talk) 19:08, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you too and that Irish inspiration should be removed but a Hebrew editor has removed the total section which I so painstakingly sourced just because he doesn't agree with it and wants to whitewash his history which isn't even neutral at all. I did not make any concerted effort purposefully and just found that all these terrorist movements inspired each other Nohorizonss (talk) 11:45, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

the same editor has a history of disruptive white washing on Sabra and shatila massacre too Nohorizonss (talk) 11:54, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

excuse me? where? Bro The Man (talk) 12:11, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hamas is Anti-Zionist not Anti-semitic

Resurrecting a topic that was archived too soon in my opinion. I would like to continue the conversation:

Bro The Man (talk) 19:29, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

This was archived instead of being deleted. Both @Bobkhan1234 and @Bro The Man are not WP:XC and thus not able to be editing in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict topic area. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:27, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

under religious terrorism, the paragraph about Hamas says they are anti Semitic. however, they are anti-Zionistic. They are not the same thing. Bobkhan1234 (talk) 13:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Arabs are are sometimes described as semitic. Is it that Hamas are opposed to the state of Israel, rather than hating the jewish people as a racial group? Isn't there a need for clarification here. Especially as Wikipedis defines "semitic" as an obsolete ethnic term. Does Hamas have any views on descendants of Jews for whom Palestine was their homeland? Rwood128 (talk) 12:32, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

@Rwood128 The confusion of these terms originated with the euphemistic language of German "racial scientists" in their attempt to "scientifically" justify anti-Jewish sentiment (Judenhass, literally "Jew-hatred"). To make a more euphemistic term they coined the word "Antisemitismus" which was borrowed into English as "antisemitism". See Antisemitism#Usage:

From the outset the term "anti-Semitism" bore special racial connotations and meant specifically prejudice against Jews. The term has been described as confusing, for in modern usage 'Semitic' designates a language group, not a race. In this sense, the term is a misnomer, since there are many speakers of Semitic languages (e.g., Arabs, Ethiopians, and Arameans) who are not the objects of antisemitic prejudices, while there are many Jews who do not speak Hebrew, a Semitic language. Though 'antisemitism' could be construed as prejudice against people who speak other Semitic languages, this is not how the term is commonly used.

Shmuel Almog argued, "If you use the hyphenated form, you consider the words 'Semitism', 'Semite', 'Semitic' as meaningful ... [I]n antisemitic parlance, 'Semites' really stands for Jews, just that."

This is why journalistic writing conventions frequently specify the use of "antisemitism" rather than "anti-Semitism". Six Oh Five(talk) 00:54, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

The origins aren't disputed but I think @Bobkhan1234 makes a valid good faith argument inline with the evolving use of language and the conceptual nuance they are communicating is sound. Bro The Man (talk) 19:00, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.