View source for Talk:Terrorism/Archive 1

{{talkarchive}}

Actually, the U.S. Dept State and FEMA's info should both be in the public domain.  Checking into that, perhaps it's proprietary and licensed.

U.S. Dept State says [http://www.state.gov/r/pa/rls/index.cfm?docid=3797 this] about copyrights on their site.  Looking for FEMA's.  I've not yet found it and so have sent an email to FEMA's public relations people.  Not expecting a response very soon, if at all.  They have quite understandably got their hands full with more pressing concerns.

:FEMA has very promptly returned the following response about the copyright question:

*Generally speaking, anything on the FEMA site is public domain and not copyrighted. If something is noted as copyrighted, then it's obviously an exception to this generalization. If you have specifics you'd like to ask us about, please let us know.
*Holly Harrington
*FEMA

-----
US is also terrorism-supporting country. CIA commited some terrorist actions in past.
:"Such as"?

: - - - 

: I suspect there are few large nations or empires that haven't had to engage in what amounts to terrorism in one form or another, or sponsored it, somewhere along their history.  But maybe that's a discussion for the [[:Colonialism|Colonialism]] page?  ;-)

: More seriously, though, how do we approach describing the CIA's involvement with terrorism?  One of the reasons I didn't really go into it is because I have a pretty strong opinion on the subject and don't feel I could be unbiased, so feel it should be written about by someone else.  As well, there are a *lot* of allegations of things they've done that just don't have a heck of a lot of proof, and of course are denied by the CIA, so where do *we* draw the line between "believed true" and "might be true"?  -- BryceHarrington  

------

''One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.'' - Ronald Reagan referring to Nicaragua's Contras 

Are any of these people terrorists?
* [[:Yitzhak Shamir|Yitzhak Shamir]]
* [[:Ariel Sharon|Ariel Sharon]]
* [[:Yassir Arafat|Yassir Arafat]]
* [[:Nelson Mandela|Nelson Mandela]] - commander of the [[African National Congress|ANC]]'s armed wing, [[Umkhonto we Sizwe]]
* [[:George Washington|George Washington]]
* [[:Bill Clinton|Bill Clinton]]
* [[:Menachem Begin|Menachem Begin]]
* [[:Eduardo Arocena|Eduardo Arocena]]
* [[:Abdullah Ocalan|Abdullah Ocalan]]
* [[:Thomas Jefferson|Thomas Jefferson]]

The United States Department of State has a guideline in Title 22 of the United States Code, Section 2656f(d): ''The term 'terrorism' means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets'' 

Certainly a definition of terrorism should not depend on whether an act was carried out by a member of al Qaeda or the Navy Seals.  When Ariel Sharon orders the destruction and bombing of a village in the occupied territories of Palestine - is this a terrorist act?  

To restrict the definition of terrorism to only "individuals or non-governmental groups" seems arbitrary and runs the risk of making the term only useful as a propaganda term for illegitimate states that seek to quell popular descent.  
----
The complete text of your quote makes it clear that the US government considers terrorism restricted to "subnational groups or clandestine agents".

Title 22 US Code, Section 2656f(d)
(d) Definitions 
As used in this section - 
(1) the term ''international terrorism'' means terrorism 
involving citizens or the territory of more than 1 country; 
(2) the term ''terrorism'' means premeditated, politically 
motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by 
subnational groups or clandestine agents; and 
(3) the term ''terrorist group'' means any group practicing, or 
which has significant subgroups which practice, international 
terrorism. 

------

Article [[talk:Most controversial subjects in wikipedia]] said:
:Using words that carry more emotions than contents, like "terrorist", is strongly discouraged.
AV responded:
:This by itself is a subjective judgement. "Terrorist" has plenty of well-definable content, and should be used when appropriate. --[[User:AV|AV]]
----
I'm afraid "terrorist" means little more than "military or paramilitary action we disagree with". Take the Middle East for instance: Israel says those who use violence against it are "terrorists", and its violence is "response". Many Palestinians, Arabs or Muslims would say that it is the Israelis who are the "terrorists", and that violence against Israel is the "response". Who is the terrorist and who is defending themselves against terrorism is basically a question of how you want to define things. -- SJK

:This is incorrect. When you attack citizens (rather than soldiers) indiscriminately in order to intimidate your opponent into doing something, you're a terrorist. '''It doesn't matter whether you consider it a "response" to anything'''. Some Palestinian groups do that and are justly called terrorist groups. Some Israelis also do that (e.g. Baruch Goldstein) are are also justly so called. 

:I strongly object to the recommendation not to use the word "terrorist", which I consider to be an absurdly, and stupidly, extremist application of political correctness. --[[User:AV|AV]]

And when you attack citizens during war, since you can't find, say, osama bin laden?  That's not terrorist?

:No, unless you're specifically and intentionally targeting the civilian population. "Attack citizens" and "attack a state" are different things, nonwithstanding the fact that every mass-scale attack will have civilian casualties. --[[User:AV|AV]]
------
AV: Well, the American Heritage Dictionary defines "terrorism" as "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons". See no reference here to any civilian vs. military distinction (people could be either). And in the case of the Middle East conflict, questions of "unlawful" (at least in a domestic law sense) are really irrelevant, since its an international conflict, albeit at present a cold one. And the recent (i.e. today or yesterday or so) Israeli destruction of the house of a Palestinian family one of whose members (allegedly) participated in terrorism seems clearly to be destruction of property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments (i.e. making Arafat do what Israel wants). So by that definition Israel would appear to be terrorist. But my point is not that Israel is or is not terrorist, or that the Palestinians are or are not terrorists; my point is simply that the word is too vague to have any real meaning except as a value judgement. -- SJK

:I understand your point; I simply think it's not founded in fact. The AH definition is sloppy, since according to it every military action can be considered terrorist activity, which is plainly not the fact. If you consider how the word is actually used, you'll see that it's almost never applied to organised attacks against military targets, in particular wars. Next, it's certainly lawful ''according to the Israeli laws and regulations'' for Israeli army to destroy a house owned by terrorist's family, however abominable the practice must seem to you; that isn't a terrorist act. If, on the other hand, some lone Israeli individual destroy a house of someone he suspects to be a terrorist, that certainly is a terrorist act and will be defined as such even in Israeli mass-media and public consciousness. In fact, a few days ago a terrorist group of settlers wounded several passerby Palestinians, and it's called and discussed as a terrorist act. 

:There certainly exists some blurriness about what is or isn't considered terrorism, but to claim that this blurriness or uncertainty in some cases (especially those involving whole states) translates to total uselessness of the term is, I maintain, incredibly misguided. However you put it, to say that someone who kills civilians indiscriminately is a terrorist is not a value judgement. Shrinking from using the correct word in this instance is an example of propaganda, since you're helping the terrorist to avoid the justly negative connotations that the word "terrorism" has acquired. You're, in fact, indirectly participating in his PR campaign. --[[User:AV|AV]]
----
AV: The biggest problem with the definition of terrorism is dealing with the distinction between terrorism and warfare. How is an act of terrorism different from gurellila warfare?

:Terrorism targets primarily the civilian population.

It isn't really. Legitimate or not, terrorist bombings and assasinations are often a succesful military strategy to adopt when faced with a much more powerful enemy that one has little hope of defeating by conventional means. Terrorism is just a different form of warfare.

:Sure, it's a different form of warfare, but it's still '''terrorism'''.

:Again, what you're trying to do here, as far as I can see, is to prevent the situation in which a paricular act is called terrorism and thereby acquires unpleasant associations that come with this term. But the associations are there '''for a reason'''. If you want, you can call a terrorist a guerilla fighter or a freedom fighter, and the terrorist may be these things, but he still remains a terrorist.  --[[User:AV|AV]]

Let me give you another example. Israel assasinates many leaders of Hamas and other Palestinian groups. The PFLP assasinates the Israeli tourism minister. Which one is the act of terrorism? They are both assasinations. 

:Zeevi has not been sending suicide bombers into Palestinian cities. Radical as he was, he was a '''politician''', not a military or terrorist activist. The leaders Israel has been assasinating have been (according to Israel's claims, which haven't been contradicted) operational leaders directly overseeing military/terrorist activity. Your analogy would be better founded has Palestinians assasinated an Israeli general on active duty; as it is, the analogy is badly flawed.

You might say that one was carried out by a government and one not, or one was lawful under domestic law and one not. But imagine it turned out that the PFLP operatives who assasinated the tourism minister were really Syrian intelligence agents, acting on the orders of the Syrian President? I'm sure Israel would still call it an act of terrorism, even though it was done by a government. 

:Yes, and had Israeli secret agents assasinated a minister in Syria's government, I wouldn't hesitate to call it an act of terrorism as well (nor would Israel's mass-media, by the way).

::Well then, is the assasination of Hamas leaders terrorism? -- SJK

:::No, because it targets leaders of the military wing of Hamas, not its speakers or political activists, or any other civilians. This doesn't mean that it's not wrong (or that it's wrong), of course, but it's not terrorism.

:::I'll also note here that although there're plenty of people who'll disagree with me on this particular point, existence of doubtful cases in no way constitutes proof that the notion of terrorism is devoid of content. --[[User:AV|AV]]

::AV: So assasinating the head of the IDF (I mean the top general -- don't know the structure of the Israeli army) wouldn't be terrorism? If whoever that person is was the next PFLP target, I'm sure the Israeli government would still call it terrorism. 

:::It wouldn't be terrorism, no. I'm not sure how the Israeli government would deal with it, but I '''am''' sure that on the whole the Israeli society would treat it differently than Zeevi's assasination (this doesn't mean it'd be forgiven or unanswered, of course). The Israeli government, like all other governments, has a history of trying to use the word "terrorism" to achieve its political ends, though its record in this is much better than that of all its neighbouring countries. --[[User:AV|AV]]
::::Okay, if attacking military targets isn't terrorism, why do the media & the U.S. government keep on referring to the Cole bombing as an act of terrorism, or attacks on U.S. troop barracks in Saudi Arabia, and before that they called the attack on the U.S. marines in Lebanon in the 80s terrorism. It seems that the term terrorism is commonly to include military targets as well. But if it includes military targets as well, which is how the world media and the US government use it, then Israeli assasinations of members of Hamas' military wings are terrorism, no? This is just my point -- whether or not an act of violence is terrorism is a question of political expediency, not fact. When it suits one politically, one defines it one way, when it suits one the other way, one defines it the other way. So the term doesn't mean much in a factual sense.
::::I think terrorism can have a meaning in a legal sense: terrorism is acts of violence in violation of the law, or in other words disapproved by the government. But that doesn't make terrorism anything factually objective -- it is just the opinion of those who hold power in that particular country. -- SJK

::You are right, some doubtful areas don't make a concept useless. But sometimes a concept is so blurry that it means basically whatever the user wants it to. -- SJK

Ultimately the assasination you call terrorism is the assasination you disagree with. -- SJK

:This is incorrect. The term has clear objective content, and that can be plainly seen from its usage. --[[User:AV|AV]]

::The clear objective content has to do with the 'to instill terror' part. Unfortunately, it is very hard to measure the objectives of a supposed terrorist. Which would mean that you can talk about what terrorism is, but not about who terrorists are. Which casts a doubtful light on those who have used the term terrorists in the past (mostly governments). --branko

-----

Don't put this with the article about terrorism, the terrorism article is big enough already, just put a link

== 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.''' [[User:Yr Enw|Yr Enw]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:TarnishedPath|''TarnishedPath'']]<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|talk]]</sup> 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. [[User:Yr Enw|Yr Enw]] ([[User talk:Yr Enw|talk]]) 08:39, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
*::@[[User:Yr Enw|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. [[User:TarnishedPath|''TarnishedPath'']]<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|talk]]</sup> 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 [https://books.google.co.in/books?hl=en&lr=&id=YmpfgNqmVXYC&oi=fnd&pg=PP5&dq=history+of+terrorism&ots=oPQ-ox5Vbr&sig=4D0_sUAhAuWKxBkrnZ6RHfbJOvc#v=onepage&q=history%20of%20terrorism&f=false "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?

[[User:IsfahanKaAasmaan|IsfahanKaAasmaan]] ([[User talk:IsfahanKaAasmaan|talk]]) 21:00, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
:I thought it was already cited. [[User:Ben Azura|Ben Azura]] ([[User talk:Ben Azura|talk]]) 17:32, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
== "[[:Famous terrorists]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] ==
[[File:Information.svg|30px]]
The redirect <span class="plainlinks">[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Famous_terrorists&redirect=no Famous terrorists]</span> has been listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|redirects for discussion]] to determine whether its use and function meets the [[Wikipedia:Redirect|redirect guidelines]]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 22#Famous terrorists}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> [[User:Steel1943|<span style="color: #3F00FF;">'''''Steel1943'''''</span>]] ([[User talk:Steel1943|talk]]) 22:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
== "[[:Demographics of terrorism]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] ==
[[File:Information.svg|30px]]
The redirect <span class="plainlinks">[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Demographics_of_terrorism&redirect=no Demographics of terrorism]</span> has been listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|redirects for discussion]] to determine whether its use and function meets the [[Wikipedia:Redirect|redirect guidelines]]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 22#Demographics of terrorism}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> [[User:Steel1943|<span style="color: #3F00FF;">'''''Steel1943'''''</span>]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Hexifi|Hexifi]] ([[User talk:Hexifi|talk]]) 02:07, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

== Controversial Definitions ==

{{Edit semi-protected|answered=yes}} <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Johnadams11|Johnadams11]] ([[User talk:Johnadams11#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Johnadams11|contribs]]) 00:54, 10 September 2024 (UTC)</small>

<!--Don't remove anything above this line.-->

== Inconsistent Spelling? ==

I noticed the article uses the term "mujaheddin":

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

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. [[Special:Contributions/212.139.35.185|212.139.35.185]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:UniversalHumanTranscendence|UniversalHumanTranscendence]] ([[User talk:UniversalHumanTranscendence|talk]]) 03:37, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

== 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: 

[[User:Bro The Man|Bro The Man]] ([[User talk:Bro The Man|talk]]) 19:29, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

:This was archived instead of being deleted. Both @[[User:Bobkhan1234|Bobkhan1234]] and @[[User:Bro The Man|Bro The Man]] are not [[WP:XC]] and thus not able to be editing in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict topic area. [[User:IOHANNVSVERVS|IOHANNVSVERVS]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Bobkhan1234|Bobkhan1234]] ([[User talk:Bobkhan1234|talk]]) [[Talk:Terrorism/Archive 17#c-Bobkhan1234-20240428135200-Hamas is anti-Zionistic, not anti Semitic.|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? [[User:Rwood128|Rwood128]] ([[User talk:Rwood128|talk]]) [[Talk:Terrorism/Archive 17#c-Rwood128-20240812123200-Bobkhan1234-20240428135200|12:32, 12 August 2024 (UTC)]]
:: @[[User:Rwood128|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". [[User:Six Oh Five|Six Oh Five]]([[User talk:Six Oh Five|talk]]) [[Talk:Terrorism/Archive 17#c-Six Oh Five-20241001005400-Rwood128-20240812123200|00:54, 1 October 2024 (UTC)]]
::: The origins aren't disputed but I think @[[User:Bobkhan1234|Bobkhan1234]] makes a valid good faith argument inline with the evolving use of language and the conceptual nuance they are communicating is sound. [[User:Bro The Man|Bro The Man]] ([[User talk:Bro The Man|talk]]) [[Talk:Terrorism/Archive 17#c-Bro The Man-20241016190000-Six Oh Five-20241001005400|19:00, 16 October 2024 (UTC)]]
{{Archive bottom}}

== 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 ". [[User:ThothOfTheSouth|ThothOfTheSouth]] ([[User talk:ThothOfTheSouth|talk]]) 04:42, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

:@[[User:Sean.hoyland|Sean.hoyland]] what is the next step? It doesn't seem like there is any concern with my change. [[User:ThothOfTheSouth|ThothOfTheSouth]] ([[User talk: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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Terrorism&diff=1251443166&oldid=1251241130 made the edit] but retained the citations. [[User:Sean.hoyland|Sean.hoyland]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:ThothOfTheSouth|ThothOfTheSouth]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Sean.hoyland|Sean.hoyland]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:ThothOfTheSouth|ThothOfTheSouth]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Nohorizonss|Nohorizonss]] ([[User talk:Nohorizonss|talk]]) 11:41, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::The information is sourced. [[User:Bro The Man|Bro The Man]] ([[User talk:Bro The Man|talk]]) 12:19, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::If it's sourced then could you add the whole section which was removed  [[User:Nohorizonss|Nohorizonss]] ([[User talk: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  [[User:Nohorizonss|Nohorizonss]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Bro The Man|Bro The Man]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Nohorizonss|Nohorizonss]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Bro The Man|Bro The Man]] ([[User talk:Bro The Man|talk]]) 13:26, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::@[[User:Bro The Man|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? [[User:ThothOfTheSouth|ThothOfTheSouth]] ([[User talk:ThothOfTheSouth|talk]]) 01:30, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::the same editor has a history of disruptive whitewashing on Sabra and shatila massacre too. [[User:Nohorizonss|Nohorizonss]] ([[User talk: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.<ref>{{Cite news |last1=Carroll |first1=Rory |last2=O'Carroll |first2=Lisa |date=2023-11-20 |title='It's part of our psyche': why Ireland sides with 'underdog' Palestine |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/nov/20/ireland-palestine-ceasefire-gaza |access-date=2024-10-04 |work=The Guardian |language=en-GB |issn=0261-3077}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Casey |first=Ruairi |title=What's behind Ireland's support for Palestine? |url=https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/6/7/whats-behind-irelands-support-for-palestine |access-date=2024-10-04 |website=Al Jazeera |language=en}}</ref>
:"
: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. [[User:Bro The Man|Bro The Man]] ([[User talk: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 [[User:Bro The Man|Bro The Man]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Nohorizonss|Nohorizonss]] ([[User talk:Nohorizonss|talk]]) 11:45, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
::the same editor has a history of disruptive whitewashing on Sabra and shatila massacre too. [[User:Nohorizonss|Nohorizonss]] ([[User talk:Nohorizonss|talk]]) 11:54, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:::excuse me? where? [[User:Bro The Man|Bro The Man]] ([[User talk:Bro The Man|talk]]) 12:11, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:<references/>
{{Archive top
|result = [[WP:ARBECR]] [[User:IOHANNVSVERVS|IOHANNVSVERVS]] ([[User talk:IOHANNVSVERVS|talk]]) 20:31, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
}}

== Revert without consensus - and discussion of modern era part in history section. ==

So @[[User:האופה|האופה]] reverted a change that was added without censuses and the user who added, the maybe controversial section, @[[User:Nohorizonss|Nohorizonss]] just added it back - saying that the revert itself had no consensus. I don't think any was discussed here. 

@[[User:Nohorizonss|Nohorizonss]] Ignored @[[User:האופה|האופה]]'s valid concerns and brought up his Hebrew username which I find irrelevant for this change. 

Maybe this is a good opportunity to discuss the Modern era subsection towards improving it.

There several  issues with the current state of the Modern era section as it stands after @[[User:Nohorizonss|Nohorizonss]] change

# Modern era ends 45 years ago but terrorism still continue to impact lives around the world. So we should either extend it to today or add another section covering the last 4 decades or so. 
# Reading through the section gives impression that a lot of the terror activities that happened during this long stretch of time was done in the context of the anti-colonialist struggle of the Jews to end the British mandate over [[Mandatory Palestine]]. This is not historically representative as many other events are missing to give context. 
# I believe that the work that @[[User:Nohorizonss|Nohorizonss]] did is valuable, but I doubt that it belongs at this level of detail in the main page of terrorism.

I recommend the following:

short term: move this level of detail to a more dedicated page and narrow down the current discussion.

long term: extend the history discussion: broaden it in scope to include more events around the world and extend the time horizon to get closer to current day events. [[User:ThothOfTheSouth|ThothOfTheSouth]] ([[User talk:ThothOfTheSouth|talk]]) 19:08, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

:I had written in the other discussion that whatever part of my research was problematic or doesn't reach consensus should be removed. But there was no discussion after that and neither did @האופה participate in the then ongoing (now dead) discussion about  the Irish paragraphs. Furthermore he stated that it ( the entire addition ) was in dispute and removed once but at that point only the Irish part was in dispute and was edit warred between two other editors. My opinion is that it needs to be compressed and reworded but should kept in Terrorism. I do *feel* that האופה's edit were in bad faith as it probably offended his political leanings. [[User:Nohorizonss|Nohorizonss]] ([[User talk:Nohorizonss|talk]]) 19:36, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
:Agree with your suggestion, @[[User:ThothOfTheSouth|ThothOfTheSouth]]. [[User:האופה|HaOfa]] ([[User talk:האופה|talk]]) 15:26, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
::You first claimed that "issues" which were raised by kapitankapow should be resolved first. The "issues" that @kapitankapow raised were non existent as it was not duplicated in first place which is why @[[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] reverted that change. [[User:Nohorizonss|Nohorizonss]] ([[User talk:Nohorizonss|talk]]) 17:21, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
:::[[WP:ONUS]] is on those wishing to include something in the article. Stop edit warring over it and discuss it or take it to an RFC. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 12:27, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
::::Isn't it self evident that the text wasn't duplicated from some other section in this same article as alleged by kapitankapow and haofa. [[User:Vanished user 3837288|Vanished user 3837288]] ([[User talk:Vanished user 3837288|talk]]) 17:24, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
:I commented "an editor with a Hebrew username" because I couldn't spell his name and it's my fault that I was lazy enough not to copy the text of his username.  I genuinely didn't think at that point that such a huge issue would be made out of an innocuous epithet and I don't think that there is anything wrong with having a unique hebrew username. I apologise for the guidelines it violated. [[User:Vanished user 3837288|Vanished user 3837288]] ([[User talk:Vanished user 3837288|talk]]) 19:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

== 'Neutral military personnel'? ==

'The term is used in this regard primarily to refer to intentional violence during peacetime or in the context of war against non-combatants (mostly civilians and neutral military personnel).'

Is the presence of neutral military personnel and its targeting by terrorists really a common situation (which the use of the word 'mostly' would seem to indicate)? It seems to me to be a very unusual and special case and I see no reason why it needs to be given special prominence among the types of non-combatants. [[Special:Contributions/62.73.72.3|62.73.72.3]] ([[User talk:62.73.72.3|talk]]) 11:20, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
:It was added [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Terrorism&diff=prev&oldid=892354594 here]. It is unclear why given that the lead should just be a summary of the article body, and it is not in the source cited. [[User:Sean.hoyland|Sean.hoyland]] ([[User talk:Sean.hoyland|talk]]) 14:10, 29 November 2024 (UTC)