It's deja vu all over again. (I always wanted to say that!)

I've noticed with the state terrorism articles that they tend to get edited exactly like the arpatheid articles, including:

• Admins on opposing sides gunning for and against content
• A lot of single purpose accounts pushing towards inclusion
• Frequent AFDs of the "big" articles (United States and Israel, respectively)
• Constant page protection
• Arbitration cases (see Giovanni33 for this case)
• General air of hostility.

Now, I'm not exactly into history - I dropped the subject at school when I was 14, so I'd probably know just the basics. I got criticised for this on the talk page of the article "Nicolae CeauÅŸescu" (the Romanian leader), but I think it reduces how blinkered I get; for example, I AFD'd an article about state terrorism and Nagasaki/Hiroshima (which surprisingly got kept, especially given the way the AFD was leaning), and even during the AFD there was a separate poll for where the Japan content should be, an ARB case. It's getting a bit complicated, to be honest.

There's a topic about the Arbitration too: Giovanni33 Arbcom case has wider ramifications.

It's exactly like the "Israeli Apartheid" etc. articles, and for the same reasons. The article is meant not to present facts, but opinions, the authority of which is unduly emphasized at every turn with full titles such as "professor Emeritus of International Law and Practice at Princeton University" and the like.

From the perspective of an encyclopedia, it just doesn't matter whether the bombings were or weren't "state terrorism", anymore than it matters whether the situation in the occupied territories is or isn't somehow analogous to Apartheid. Strip these analogies of their moralistic and rhetorical components, and there is nothing left. There is no such thing as an acknowledged expert in moral judgments; these are conclusions to which readers should be left to arrive (or not) on their own.

Once again, we see "default to keep" as a gaping loophole which opinionated editors exploit: it is much easier to remove opinionated material from an established article than it is to remove an article which is deliberately and inherently opinionated in its entirety. "Default to keep" should be abolished. That's the way to solve these (and other) problems.

Thank god we're leaning towards "default to delete" on BLPs.

Speaking as a Romanian, I can only guess that on that talk page anything less than total demonization of CeauÅŸescu will get you flamed (which I agree with, on him being a total cunt--he was a monster of the first order). Is that what happened out of curiosity?

It was for getting the phrase "kangaroo court" removed from the lead because it's a really POV term, and the pages for (the arguably more evil) Saddam and Hitler (Hi Mike!) don't contain such terms. Frankly, I'm not bothered about what they've done, Wikipedia must be neutral in all circumstances. Hell, I removed the word "terrorist" as a definite (other than a quoted) descriptor of Al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden for the same reason. I just wish people shared my views on this...

"Terrorist" has undergone many changes in meaning over the years, referring at first to something which would not be obviously applicable to either Al Qaeda or the bombing of Hiroshima.

Today, I think it fair to say that it refers most canonically to civilian irregulars who target civilians using unconventional tactics, with applications becoming more debatable as we diverge from the most canonical examples - e.g. Hezbollah irregulars target Marine barracks using unconventional tactics (but the targets are not civilians), IDF targets civilians using unconventional tactics (such as leg-breaking) to quash dissent (but the actor is a government), America bombs civilians along with a few token military targets (but the actor is a government and by then bombing was a conventional tactic) etc. For example, if Al Qaeda had an air base and attacked the Pentagon with jet fighters, this would be difficult to categorize as terrorism.

As it is, Al Qaeda is not just a canonical example of terrorism in regular (unforced non-introspective etc.) English usage, but the canonical example. Labeling them terrorists is as descriptive as calling South African Apartheid…Apartheid. Labeling other countries as Apartheid practitioners or regular militaries as terrorists is strictly metaphorical, meant not to categorize information but to illustrate a "when you think about it, …"-type point.

Hence why these days, at least the BBC don't use the word.

That shitty article was one of my particular annoyances in my first tenure and I'm sure one of the reasons Mongo & Co had it in for me (among others...).

But I'd be curious to see how everyone would react if actual sources from media/local authorities in non-Western or US-aligned nations started popping up calling incidents where a US fighter jet accidentally killed civilians, for example, terrorism, and that side of the fence started getting more solid sourcing. NPOV wouldn't let say, an Iranian or Pakistani or Egyptian source to be excluded. Not likely to happen, I'm sure, but it would be an interesting NPOV fight to watch.



I'd be a bit scared if Al Qaeda managed that sort of infrastructure under our noses. How long would it take some moron to scream COBRA!!! on Wikipedia as vandalism if they pulled it off?

I think the reliable and/or notable source-based model is a very poor way of resolving what is really an argument (or should be) about the proper dictionary definition in every day speech. If someone earnestly informs you, "there was a big terrorist attack today," without any further information, you have a reasonably clear idea of what kind of event occured, or at least that it was *not* a US fighter jet bombing someone, even if the bombing were actually aimed at civilians and was morally heinous. It may well be deliberately described as "terrorism" on talk shows or in editiorials, where opinionated metaphor is completely valid and the norm, but it's not the way an English speaker - including those overseas - would naturally describe events (and I have personally never read it or heard it used except in a self-conscious effort to make the reader/listener think.)

Of course you can find sources saying all kinds of things; e.g. we can call American drug prohibition a "war" and stick the American wars template on the article, because some reliable sources used the phrase "war on drugs." (But it's sourced! A professor said these three words in a row once!")

Difficult, but not impossible. When Al Qaeda attacked a US guided missle destroyer (the Cole) in 2000 with a little tiny boat, killing only US military personnel, and after a declaration of war, the US (specifically President Clinton) DID indeed call it "terrorism." Terrorism has come to mean "Politically motivated attacks against a country's personnel, military personnel or civilians, where no country formally takes credit." This is essentially the view that "war" and "warfare" are the province of governments only, and no other individuals or groups need apply. It's the usual double standard, and it's based on perceived authority to carry out violence. Much of what the president of any country with a military does, would earn a private civilian a death sentence for murder. Executives of countries get away with it all the time (unless they're on the losing end of a war, of course).

By this definition, ANY action taken against citizens or interests of one government by agents that aren't "on the books" for another government is an act of terrorism. Al Qaeda attacking a US ship; the IRA bombing a car; local citizens working to do the sorts of things the CIA, Mossad, or MI6 does... they'd all be terrorism. I don't think any government would accept that as a definition, unsurprisingly, because it would be invalid as a description unless it was universally applied.

If one group performs an action, and it's terrorism, then logic says that any other group doing the same sort of action is terrorism as well. Interesting argument, there.

Not necessarily - is there some theoretical reason why words for actions can't specify or partially specify their actors? Mind you, I'm not talking about the way semantics ought to work in some fair world. It's an easily-observed fact that the word "terrorist/terrorism" is applied more often to civilian irregulars using unconventional tactics than it is to others performing "the same" activity - the point being that the events aren't actually the same except along the one parameter one has chosen to highlight; as in all metaphor, the particulars which differ are irrelevant only by fiat.


I don't personally consider the Cole attack unfair play, or terrorism. However, fact that the perpetrator organization are terrorists already, were using a tactic associated with terrorists/terrorism (suicide bombing), with an ideology which has, in the popular imagination, come to be uniquely associated with contemporary terrorism, must be seen to motivate this usage.

For example, left wing guerrillas are not naturally called "terrorists", although governments might call them that, though their actions fall squarely under your proposed definition.

Great, it looks like the DRV is heading towards an endorse. Doesn't surprise me G33 and RPOD have commented...

I guess I'm a "murder is murder" sort of guy, the consequences of being a filthy New Englander. Applying laws, standards, and definitions uniformly to all players at all levels of society is the only way things can be fairly noted (and not just specific to the state terrorism nonsense).

If Bob kills Jane, a perfect stranger, by shooting her in the face, and society decides it's murder, and then John kills Hannah, a perfect stranger, by shooting her in the face, in similar to matching circumstances, it should be murder as well.

If a paramilitary group acting at the time without an avowed and acknowledged official government endorsement works to destabilize a foreign government or power through a violent act, and society deems it terrorism, it should also be considered terrorism when any other paramilitary group acting at the time without an avowed and acknowledged official government endorsement does the same thing. The problem is, the weight of media and authority in these things comes from the West, and no mainstream acknowledge news media is going to apply standards uniformly. Katie Couric isn't going to accuse the Bush administration hypothetically of terrorism on CBS News.

This is me just whinging, but if all of society were just, all such examinations would be done uniformly and evenly. Before anyone brings it up, it's not terrorism only if an "evil" nation does it. To us, some Islam nations are evil. To some Islam nations, we're evil. Who's to say who is right and who is wrong, beyond where we happened to be raised, and history?

I think it important to point out that terrorism is at its root just another tactic of war. War is Bad Stuff™ to begin with, and no doubt that people who find killing under any circumstances morally repugnant probably find all tactics of war morally repugnant. I find that applying motivations to a definition of a terrorist is troublesome, for their motivations are really not all that different from state actors presently and historically (political reasons, terroritory, ideology, etc). If you agree with the side of the "terrorist" you probably call him a revolutionary or a freedom fighter. I think it is easier to call whatever tactic the person/group/state is using as terrorism.

It is easier for me to consider terrorism as simply a tactic of war, like other tactics of war (propaganda, espionage, sabotage, etc).

Yes. Terrorism is basically a method. The idea of going to war with a method, however, wouldn't fly very well.

WTF???? Tiny boat????? God! What a stupid thing to say. So what if they used a tiny boat? Wake up and smell the freaking coffee. Duh.

The entire concept of "terrorism" has been co-opted and, in recent years, re-constructed by the government to use as propaganda. The term "terrorism" has been reduced to meaningless garbage--if it was ever anything more than that in the first place. Thus, any article which includes the word "terrorism" will never be seen as NPOV.

You're wrong. Plenty of articles that include the word "terrorism" will be seen on WP as NPOV. That's the problem.