Talk:Terrorism/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about Terrorism. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

On 16:06, 1 Nov 2004, 208.59.117.137 added the following:

The State of Israel was also founded upon terror tactics including bombings, assasination and civilian murder. Right wing Zionist radiacals like Menachem Begin and Yitzak Shamir, both to be later elected as Prime Ministers of Israel, were most definitly terrorists by any objective standard. Examples of Zionist terror operations sactioined by Begin and Shamir include the bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, which killed many British soldiers, as well as innocent civilians, the assasination of Count Folke Bernadotte, and the assasination of Lord Moyne. In fact, most of what we recognize as the modern tactics of terror were first intorduced into the Middle East by the radical Zionists: bombing public markets, letter bombs, assasinations, etc.

In the course of the Zionist terror war against the British Mandate, the kidnap and murder of British soldiers was also a commonly used tactic. Eventually the British, exhausted from the struggle of World War II, wilted before the Zionist terror war and withdrew from Palestine, leaving the Arabs to face the same tactics.

The massacre of hundreds of Arab civilians, men, women and children alike, at the peaceful Arab village of Deir Yassin by Irgun terrorists on April 9, 1948 was a key in creating the atmosphere of fear and panic that led approximately 750,000 Arabs to flee Palestine in the Spring of 1948, clearing the way for the establishment of Israel.

And apparrently nobody noticed the anti-Israel rant for a couple of weeks. :)

I've removed the offending text. (I have a dynamic IP and no account as of yet.)

I think an objective summary of the Deir Yassin incident as an example of terrorism would be appropriate, but not if it is coupled with demagougic crap.

Bruce - 13 Nov 2004

First of all, the Deir Yassin "massacre" was a battle. Even today, Arabs frequently use Civilian areas to launch Military operations. If you meet an Iraq veteran he or she can testify that Mosques, civilian places of prayer are used to shoot rockets at Militery and Civilian targets. This tactic is done to raise public outcry that innocent civilians are killed in the crossfire. Also, a tight dark network of streets is perfect very defendable from buildings and is a lot safer then taking the battle into the battlefield where it belongs.

AS to the King David Hotel: The King David was used as the British Militery HQ Palestine and Transjordan. (Look up Sykes Picot agreement) It was a militery target. When the bomb was planted, a telephone call was made to the British commander saying:

"I am speaking on behalf of the Hebrew underground. We have placed an explosive device in the hotel. Evacuate it at once - you have been warned"

The British commanders decided not to alert anyone else and fled the hotel. Do not try to equate Incidents such as the King David bombing with Palestinian suicide bombings. THe Hotel was a Militery Base Sbarro's Pizza is not.

THE LINK TO WIKIPEDIA ON KING DAVID BOMBING http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing

AS to the Refugees. The Refugee's situation is unfortunate, but was not caused by Israel. Arab Propagana (probably Egyptian or Jordanian, not sure)circulated in Palestine advised Palestinian Arabs to leave urban areas such as Haifa and Jerusalem so that soon to be victorious Arab armies can kill everyone in the cities without the posibility of killing fellow muslims. Once defeated, the Arab Nations did not do a good job of fixing the refugee problem they created and instead, dumped them on the Gaza Strip and West Bank where they have remained ever since. The ARab neighbours told the Palestinian Arabs that the situation was the Jews' fault and the Region has been a festering pit of hatred ever since.

The Arab Nations also expelled much of their Jewish populations with meagre possetions and imposed strict restrictions on them, identical in nature, but lesser in extent to the Nuremberg Laws.

Note that Palestinian Sources are not the most accurate when it comes to facts and figures. Example: In the Jenin invasion (Around May 2002 )the Palestinian authority claimed 500 casualties. Even the UN could not find evidence behind this claim.

Michael Feb 28 05

207.173.205.13 added this text under "Examples of Terrorism" but I removed it because it seemed out of place and not worded appropriately. Perhaps someone with experience editing this article can add the material if appropriate. — SimonEast 11:42, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"(not to mention the revelations a few months back when Jordanian authorities arrested numerous terrorists who were intending to kill over 3,000 people in the Jordanian capital of Amman by attacking government buildings and the such with massive explosive-laden trucks)"

Yeah, I saw that and almost removed it myself. Seems like a non sequitur. Isomorphic 03:29, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I removed the just-added "Kinds of terrorism" section. The article used to have extensive detail on kinds of terrorism. Now that material is in other articles and accessible from the sidebar, so there's really no need to have it in the main article. Isomorphic 14:55, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Washington and the ETA

The means used to achieve any goal should be placed within the context of what means were actually possible. For instance, the American revolutionaries led by George Washington who fought against the British in the 18th century were not terrorists because violent revolution was the only means possible for change in their circumstances, while modern day Basque organization ETA are terrorists because peaceful means for change are possible within the EU.

This is monstrous. What "peaceful means for change … within the EU are open to the ETA? It seems to me that their position is comparable to that of Washington's revolutionaries.

I have altered this paragraph.

Shorne 23:48, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think a main point being missed is observing the targets and methods being used. Attacks against an adversary military/quasi-military force isn't considered terrorism, but rather militancy. The idea being that militancy is a military form of opposition. In contrast to American Revolutionaries who fought the British military, ETA frequently attacks non-military targets. As such ETA is a terrorist organization, while the former are not. Random attacks in shopping malls intended to terrify civilians and the murder of judges is hardly the same.

Doug Mon Jun 28 04:50:50 UTC 2004

ETA have murdered at least one child in a bomb near Alicante Aug 2002. It is arguable that ETA have no choice but to use violence, because up till now violence has not created an independent Basque country, and arguably have spoilt a good idea with innocent blood.--SqueakBox 01:07, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

Conscription

State-sponsored terrorist attacks on their "own" civilian populations are far more deadly and can be sustained for longer durations. Stalin's pre World War II purges and the 1960s "cultural revolution" in China two conventional examples. Conscripton is also state sponsored terrorism. The "support" for the government extracted by the military is of the most direct and personal kind. The casualties among the innocent conscripted civilians in both world wars dwarfs that of all other weapons of mass destruction.

It's not clear whether this paragraph can be salvaged at all, but in particular the part beginning with "Conscription..." seems to evade NPOV (at the very least). - toh

--

Also, the 'facts' are blatant NPOV violation - far more deadly is based on what facts exactly? In the 'Chomsky' newspeak State Terrorism refers only to right-wing militias sponsered by any non-leftist government, while purposely ignoring that most left-wing militants and terrorists had massive state sponsorship from Soviet client-states such as Cuba, Syria, Egypt, East-Germany, etc. Doug Sep 29 05:51:26 UTC 2004

I'll delete that paragraph. I agree that it cannot be salvaged. As for conscription, shouldn't it be called corvée labour rather than terrorism? Shorne 07:30, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm assuming the sentence meant conscription into the military, and the possibility of being sent into battle against one's will. Conscription, however, is as old as civilization, and it's kind of ridiculous to call it "terrorism." Isomorphic 16:27, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Oh the neutrality!

OK. I went through and tried to remove editorializing from all sides. The only way to keep this article from being a constant battleground (as well as a rambling mess of "some say.. but others say... and on the third hand...") is to keep it stripped down to essentials. Anybody who wants to fight or editorialize can do it in one of the sub-articles as far as I'm concerned. This article should remain short and clean. Isomorphic 21:09, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

template

How can you edit the terrorism template? It contains a serious mistake by including "guerrilla" in it. - pir 00:57, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Go to Template:Terrorism and click edit [1]. BTW, you're right, guerilla should definitely be removed from the list. --style 06:46, 2004 Oct 18 (UTC)

thanks. - pir 23:25, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The Great "Terrorism" Debate

There's a debate going on at Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks#The Great "Terrorism" Debate that may interest followers of this article. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 11:56, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

I would argue that 9/11 is mentioned FAR too many times in an article that should address all sorts of terrorism, cite original examples and stray from the Americocentric examples often associated with the topic.

Eight types,

I suggest that perhaps a better way to go would be not an ideal type definition, but a typological approach, a interpretation of terrorism as a strategy of intimidation & violence broadly delimited into eight categories. This isn’t intended to be a typological theory, but instead read as an array, a temporary representation and ordering of tropes in order to foster a critical view.

8 types, mytho-terrorism, anarcho-terroism, socio-terrorism, ethno-terrorism, narco-terrorism, state-terrorism, anti-terrorism, and pure-terrorism.

1.Mytho-terrorism: the protean form of terrorism—fear desire, and violence converging and erupting when the desires of the alienated can no longer be ignored. There’s a power to mytho-terrorism that handicaps a reasonable inquiry, because it affirms the boundary between legitimate & rational use of violence, and the illegitimate irrational use. A grand category that would equate all forms of terror, and cut off inquiry.

2.Anarcho-terrorism: anti-state political violence.

3.Socio-terrorism: those who indorse and conduct class warfare. (parses terrorism & marxism).

4.ethno-terrorism: the violent efforts of a national, communal, or ethnic group to acquire the status of a state.

5.narco-terrorism: the violent blending of illicit drug trade & political intimidation

6.state terrorism: premeditated politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by clandestine state agents. (a shift that obscures a long history of state rule by terror)

7.anti-terrorism: the combating of terrorism, in the struggle for international legitimacy by small state sponsored groups.

8.pure terrorism: an international political crisis in which violent intimidation and manipulation has created a pervasive state of insecurity and fear—a state in which the critical production and distribution of terrorist threat that is temporal, and not territorial.

Have these distinctions been made by others, or is this original research? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:11, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Uri Avnery

Prey tell, are there any grounds for his inclusion here?

He considers himself a peace activist these days (some people think otherwise). Who did ever label him a terrorist?

Lame joke: Maybe some starlet that got the hachet treatment in his days as a journalist?

elpincha Oct 2004

He was a member of the Jewish terrorist organisation Irgun, but later became a dedicated peace activist. - pir 11:08, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Mistake here. In 1948 Avnery was with the Haganah, specifically with Giv'ati. Most people who argue that he was/is a terrorist or an accomplice to terrorists are Israelis or pro-Israeli observers (who support what could roughly be called the Likud view, please don't flame over this) that think his positions ever since the late 1970s have actually aided and abetted terrorists. This is strongly POV, and even though I personally disagree, I can see through their line of interpretation. Now: To claim, as some people has done, that his Gush Shalom group has praised attacks on civilians, is factually false.

Is 'Sabra and Shatila Massacre' Terrorism

Could, the Sabra and Shatilla Massacre [2], be considered to be terrorism? and If not please explain in the light of first statement of the article which is

" Terrorism refers to the use of violence against noncombatants for the purpose of achieving a political, religious or socio-economic goal. Terrorist acts can be carried out by individuals or groups, and are sometimes sponsored by governments as an alternative to an open declaration of war."

Thanks in Advance

With regards

Zain 11:17, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If it has any connotation relating to terrorism it would have to be State sponsored terrorism as the act was done by the IDF. While I believe the act was a massacre, it was against possibly armed forces. In a situation in which the details are so vague, I believe it is best to leave it alone.

                     -FreestyleFrappe

In the definition there is no mention of 'possible' armed force and in the definition there is no mention of 'state' involvement. So according to the definition given in the page it looks to me that the incident qualifies as terrorism. Any suggestions? (according to the definition please note)

Zain 10:36, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Do civilian killings due to hate, qualify as Terrorism

In the statement and American law definition, I didn't see hate as a reason. So if 'Al Qaida' killed thousands of people just because they hate America then you won't call 9/11 'Terrorism'. Sounds very strange to me. So to prove any instance as Terrorism, you have to first prove that hate was not the 'only' reason that they killed civilians?

with regards

Zain 11:27, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In the case of the WTC attacks on September 11, hate was not the main motivation for the act. Political change in American Foreign Policy was at least the claim used by the perpetrators.

                     -FreestyleFrappe

Well I tried to say if 'Al Qaida' did it for hate, instead of political motivation, then will it be regarded as terrorism.

Zain 10:33, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Killing civilians because the perpetrator hates the civilians is not terrorism. The last thing the Nazis wanted the Hungarian Jews to be was to be terrified, because it would have slowed down their killing. Terrorism is the act of trying to inducing a change in a political process by using violence or the threat of violence on a population to alter their behaviour or to influence the policy of a government. Philip Baird Shearer 00:16, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

So if a Palestinian suicide bomber attacks due to hatred it won't be terrorism? Then I think many of those suicide bombers are not terrorist and even some (if not all) of the 9/11 Hijacker won't be terrorists! But of course if I say Atta Muhammad or any one of his gang was not terrorist I'll be labeled as Islamic Extremist may be even Terrorist Collaborator or their spokes man. :-D

Zain 00:29, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If a Palestinian suicide bomber attacks to try to influence the political views of her target population then that is terrorism. The suicide bomber's emotional state has no relevence in judging if the attack is a terrorist one. Philip Baird Shearer 01:56, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I understand but if the main factor of a suicide bombing is hatred instead of bringing a political change, then can we call it terrorism?

Zain 02:13, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'd just call that mass murder. Jack the Ripper may have caused terror, and hatred of women is often suspected as a motive: but so far as I know no entity ever claimed responsibility and made demands for change that would end the killings. So it is not called terrorism. It's that demand for some sort of change (other than simple reduction of population) that makes terrorism. Killing for pure hate, hate alone (as distinct from hate generated by oppression, say, which could be removed by departure of the oppressor), is "merely" murder, genocide, etc. Kwantus 03:52, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)

Hm. Is it really the motive that matters, or the intention to instill terror? If so, it would not matter if a suicide attacker dislikes his/her victims, but if he/she primarily attacks to achieve a demoralizing effect on civilians. (Note that there are military reasons to suicide-attack at target where the attack would not be considered terrorist.) (Some Guy) 05:04, 26 Dec 2004 (EMT)

In a word 'yes'. All definitions of terrorism include motive. For example Holocaust is not counted as terrorism!. I personally haven't found any definition which calls 'hate' as a 'motive' to terrorism. Same as I haven't found any definition which doesn't include motive as factor to distinguish between 'terrorist acts' and 'non-terrorist acts'.

Zain 11:22, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Examples of terrorism

The examples should be limited -- Perhaps the half dozen with the larges loss of life over the last ten years. Otherwise the list is very arbitrary and wide open to none NPOV. Philip Baird Shearer 01:56, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It is NPOV to include all views, not simply those with wide acceptance. An "examples" section is by its nature POV, of course. It says "these are acts of terrorism" while anything left out may or may not be. Dr Zen 01:22, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Most people would agree"

This is the worst kind of weasel wording! Come on now. I've tried to NPOV the section a little but frankly it's ridiculous and should be scrapped entirely. I haven't been bold, but I would like other editors with an interest to discuss why they feel a selective list adds anything to this article, and why they believe such a narrowly defined interpretation of terrorism, which conflicts with the definition we give in kicking off the article, should be used.Dr Zen 01:24, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree with your rewrite of the examples section. "Most people would agree" is indeed weasel wording without supporting evidence. However, there is a problem with the description of terrorism as currently given in the intro.

The current intro is the result of a fairly recent rewrite, before which the article consistently used a more limited definition. The reason the article is now inconsistent is that the current intro defines terrorism so loosely that there can't be an article on it. It's too broad to define a subject, so the rest of the article just continued using the more restrictive definition because that was the only way to have much of anything to say.

A possible solution to this would be to adopt a single definition for the purposes of Wikipedia. Then we could include an explanation to the effect that not everyone defines terrorism this way, but for the purposes of Wikipedia we are describing the phenomenon [definition]. Isomorphic 05:42, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Isomorphic, my suggestion, prompted by discussion with SlimVirgin, is that we should not define it at all, but should give a selection of definitions from various sources. I don't think it would be anything like NPOV for us to choose one definition over others. What do you think?Dr Zen 02:54, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

We had such a section. It spun out into a subarticle, definitions of terrorism, which is pretty decent. I'd love it if people collected more definitions (from well-known or reputable sources) and added them there.

However, I'm less concerned with nailing down a definition than with returning the intro to something other than a POV screed. It spends lots of time implying that state violence should be considered terrorism, that the term terrorism is inherently contradictory, or that the popular definition of terrorism is flawed. At the same time it manages to spend no time at all discussing the phenomenon usually called terrorism. And where an intro section is supposed to summarize and introduce the rest of the article, this one has nothing to do with the rest of the content. Most of its content belongs in a separate section, if anywhere.

Lest anyone ask why I don't correct it instead of whining, the answer is that I did. The current tone of the intro was introduced in a rewrite by Vermillion, and I reverted part (but not all) of it at the time. Despite the fact that the version I reverted to had been fairly stable for a month and was fairly bare-bones, I was accused of POV. I figured it was pretty futile to continue at that point. Isomorphic 07:01, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Flagrant bias

The title of the entry in the INFORMATION offering updates on "Islamic Terrorism" displays egregious bias and must be changed or deleted.

Suppose someone were to insert a link to a site purporting to profile recent Israeli assaults against civilians. Any attempt to entitle such a link "Information on Jewish Terrorism" on Wikipedia would be instantly (and correctly) protested.BrandonYusufToropov 16:17, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

However, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

This line has got to go or be modified.

If terrorism is defined as the use of violence against civilians to achieve political ends, then freedom fighting and terrorism are not necessarily equivalent terms. Rather, terrorism may be more properly be understood as one particular type of "freedom fighting," as a group may engage in a rebellion against the established government without attacking civilians. To assert that "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" is to establish a false moral equivalence and to denigrate those "freedom fighters" or rebels that refrain from violence against civilians.

Source of terrorism in the world

Plz consider the fallowing passage:

"The women chosen by the BBC on its web page [3] are special people... the common Saudi women are living a life beyond our imagination... Under the global pressure, if the Saudi regime is opening the doors of freedom of thought, speech and expression in that conservative society, it will not only benefit the common people but will nip the roots of terrorism around the world as well. We the common Muslims in Pakistan are directly affected by the traditional conservative policies of the Saudi Arabian and Iranian regimes... Both Saudi Arabia and Iran have been financially supporting their agents in Pakistan and thus sectarianism and terrorism has been nourished in our land. These terrorists never let us common Pakistani women to walk around freely and try to through acid on our faces or stop marathon races by force and they want to show us the model of Saudi Arabia and Iran... (Sick). If Saudi Arabia and Iran are motivated by the world community to be a part of the world community then the world can get rid of terrorism and extremism.

The Saudi man has all the privilege...they can have 4 wives at a time... many trips around the world, especially 'moral holidays' in the West but their women live a life less than human beings...it should change now!

Just 4000 princes (from the King to the police officer) of a family are ruling the poor Saudi people with tyranny and it is not only affecting them but every one in the region, especially in the Muslim world…

These things should be included in the main article of Wikipedia in a balanced way!"

Keith Henson's thoughts

william buckland's thoughts, "terrorism is a form of warfare."

I would put it a bit differently. Terrorism and warfare are both the outcome of stressed human populations.

Also: "that is to say, politics by other means."

I think "politics" misses he evolutionary origin of war and terrorism. I commented about this recently on the virus list when someone mentioned that there was disagreement about the Wikipedia page for "terrorism" and proposed that it might be recast as a memetics issue. My comments there:

(begin quote)

I am sorry to say that memetics is not the right tool for the job. This is coming from a person whose status depends to a considerable degree on work in memetics now dating back over 20 years.

What is needed is evolutionary psychology.

Many of us overrated memes as being causal to wars and related social disruptions. They do play a role in the causal *chain* leading to war and/or terrorism but as members of interchangeable class. They are not at the origin of the chain.

The ultimate cause of "uncaused" wars and terrorism is rooted in the problems of any species that escapes its predators. Without predation, animals always over exploit their environment. This is true of chimps as well as humans. By taking to the trees to sleep and staying in groups during the day, very few chimps get eaten by leopards.

So chimp populations are limited by violence--sometimes total genocide--between groups. (Bumper sticker: Be Your Own Predator!)

For this to be stable, there has to be feedback making violence between chimp groups more likely as the population rises or the food supply falls. I do not know what it is that turns on chimpanzee genocides, though this would be an important question to ask.

Humans have an evolved behavioral switch that is activated by the anticipation of coming hard times. The link through memes is that the switch turns up the gain of circulating xenophobic memes. In the environment of evolutionary adaptiveness, the circulating memes synchronized a tribe's warriors to a do or die attack on a neighboring tribe.

In a situation where the tribe members would all starve without taking over a neighbor's territory, the genes of the warriors were better off *even if the warriors lost and were all killed.* The reason is that their genes were also present in the female children which were normally booty to the winning tribe. (You need to understand Hamilton's inclusive fitness for this to make sense.)

If you wonder why humans seem to have rather flexible morals, it is part and parcel of our evolutionary heritage. Morals *are* situational. If you want peace rather than wars and terrorism, all human populations need to be looking at an improving future (or at least not a bleak one).

[A question for the class to consider is why some parts of the world are much more stable than others.? As a specific case, give an EP account for why population support for the IRA faded out? Date (+-5 years) the origin of the proximate cause.]

As an analogy, removing a lug nut from a wheel with sticks and rocks would be an awful job. But it becomes a simple task with an air wrench. So it is with understanding wars and terrorism with EP instead of memetics.

Unfortunately, the understanding that emerges is extremely depressing. Because it uses the E word, it can't even be comprehended by the rising political forces in the US.

(end quote)

Bradley Thayer's recent book _Darwin and International Relations_ more or less supports this view.

If there is interest for this merging of war, terrorism and relates social disruptions, I will be happy to contribute a draft.

Keith Henson

FactFinder

I am now considered a terrorist

In 2005 five Karl Rove and George W Bush declared all liberals Terrorist Sympathizers.

Rudolph and Goldstein examples

I notice a little edit war going on with whether to include Rudolph and Goldstein as examples of terrorists whose intentions were to maximize casualties. The only problem I see is that terrorists generally are seen as acting on behalf of an organization. These two, as far as I understand, are mass murderers but perhaps aren't clear examples of "terrorists". What do you think? And are there any better examples to use instead of them? --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 15:51, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

I removed them because they operated as indivduals and therefore the issue of giving warning is irrelevant to them. A psychopath never issue a warning before he opens a killing spree (which is usualy done spotanoussly out of revenage, the phsycho takes a gun and just start shooting). However, organizations are more calculated and often act in the pursuit of a certain goal. Their attack are almost always planned and carried out by dedicated teams, which act in a more calculated way and are suboedinate to their group's agenda. Therefore, they have the means to issue warnings (anonymous call to the press by another team members), if they want to spare human lives and just cause panic. MathKnight 16:00, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think that's much better. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 16:05, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

A hallmark of contemporary far-right-wing terrorism is the encouragement and support of "lone wolves" who can deny formal involvement with any organization. The FBI thinks the phenomenon exists:

http://cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/2005/US/02/01/schuster.column/

Someone who doesn't think this pattern exists should bear the responsibility of proving that the FBI is wrong on this point.

If you remove Rudolph from the article, do you plan on rewriting the Eric Robert Rudolph page to defend the view that he is not a terrorist? What type of language do you plan to use on that? How about Timothy McVeigh?

Both Goldstein and Rudolph belong in. BrandonYusufToropov 16:39, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Which groups did encouraged Goldstein and Rudolph to commit these acts? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:32, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Are they part of a group? Did they operated on behalf of a group? Can you back these charges? As I stated before, individual terrorists or murderers, who acts on their own, and usually out of vandatta, don't issue warnings since they act is usually spontanous and second - they are usually get killed or caught after their first attack, so no pattern can be determined. The issue of warnings valid only for group terrorism - attacks which are mastermind by groups and so a pattern can be determined (the attackers may get killed, but the group have other attackers, willing to do similiar acts). So far you failed to address the issues. MathKnight 17:06, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And the FBI would be, in your view, delusional in describing them as terrorists? BrandonYusufToropov 18:49, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Where does the FBI mention Goldstein? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:54, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Correction: "Him." And the other half-dozen US lone wolves mentioned in the article. Obviously, they don't have jurisdiction over Goldstein.

The question remains -- we are writing an article on Terrorism. FBI says Rudolph is a terrorist. Are they right or wrong? Wriggle elsewhere, please. Looking for a direct answer. Thanks loads. BrandonYusufToropov 19:07, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yusuf, you again fail to address the issue. The question is not whether their activity consist of being terrorist, but rather they were belonged to a group or not. MathKnight 19:12, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm challenging the contention that one has to be a publicly declared member of a group to be a terrorist, yes, and pointing out that the FBI agrees with me on this point. Acknowledged? Or is some fact in dispute in what I just wrote? BrandonYusufToropov 19:15, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You again failed to address the point. I don't claim they were not terrorist, but that they acted as individuals and therefore the issue of giving warning is pretty much irrelevant for them. Please see Independent terrorist actor for more information. MathKnight 19:27, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The CNN article I forwarded (see above) makes the point that these individuals operate quote independently unquote -- but under the tacit approval of, and with the training, support, and education of -- organized groups. (This was Goldstein's pattern as well, by the way.) The terrorists in question do this in order to pursue their bloody agenda effectively over time and, yes, that agenda definitely includes sneaking up on civilians whom they wish to kill without giving prior notice.

Question number one: Did you read the article?

Question number two: Do you think it's about terrorism?

Question number three: Where is this information included in our discussion of how terrorist groups target their victims? BrandonYusufToropov 20:11, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This was Goldstein's pattern? Who approved, trained and supported him in his attack? He took a machine gun and gunned down a bunch of people. There were no bomb labs, timing devices, disguises etc. required. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:59, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You know what I love about chatting with you, Jay? Those slipstream reversals. Was I talking about bomb labs? Was I talking about disguises? No. What I said was, "tacit approval," and "training, support, and education." Not specific ops. After they're cut loose, having received early indoctrination, lone wolves are on their own. (Like you didn't get that already.)

I quote:

http://www.geocities.com/alabasters_archive/goldstein_significance.html

Goldstein's refusal to give proper medical treatment to non-Jews continued after he was transferred to Kiryat Arba. In his February 27,1994 Yediot Ahronot article, Nahum Barnea wrote:

"The senior Israeli army officer in the Hebron area told me about his two encounters with Baruch Goldstein. The second time he saw him was in the company of Kach goons who were abusing President Ezer Weisman during his visit to Kiryat Arba."

I quote:

http://www.ict.org.il/inter_ter/orgdet.cfm?orgid=19

"Kach (Hebrew for 'Only Thus') was founded by radical Israeli-American rabbi Meir Kahane. The stated goal of Kach and its offshoot Kahane Chai, which means 'Kahane Lives,' (founded by Meir Kahane's son Binyamin following his father's assassination in the United States), is to restore the biblical state of Israel. Both organizations were declared terrorist organizations by the Israeli Cabinet in March 1994. [my emphasis--BYT] This followed the groups' statements in support of Dr. Baruch Goldstein's attack in February 1994 on the al-Ibrahimi Mosqueand their verbal attacks on the Israeli Government. Goldstein was affiliated with Kach.

You've been a busy bee lately, Jay. One of the things you've been busy doing is misdirecting conversations like these. Back to camp, compass in hand:

Question number one: Did you read the CNN article (above) about lone wolves?

(Replay: These individuals operate quote independently unquote -- but under the tacit approval of, and with the training, support, and education of -- organized groups. This was Goldstein's pattern as well, by the way. The terrorists in question do this in order to pursue their bloody agenda effectively over time and, yes, that agenda definitely includes sneaking up on civilians whom they wish to kill without giving prior notice.)

Question number two: Do you think the CNN article I posted is about terrorism?

Question number three: Where is this information included in our discussion of how terrorist groups target their victims? BrandonYusufToropov 20:11, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC

Actually, my questions were directly to the point. The alleged phenomenon of "lone wolf" actors who are indoctrinated and then stealthily sent on their way to act on their own, so that the indoctrinating organization can deny responsibility, is fundamentally different from the typical terrorist phenomenon, wherein an organized group uses sophisticated means to train and equip its operatives, and then claims responsibility for the resultant acts in order to increase its prestige, power, following, and funding. Your attempts to conflate these two fundamentally different phenomena were simply incorrect; now that the lone wolf phenomenon has been placed in its own logical and coherent section, the article once again makes sense. So, in answer to your questions, 1) Yes. 2) It's an allegation about a different kind of terrorism, and 3) Where it belongs, in its own section discussing the alleged phenomenon. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:37, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Progress. Clearly, we allegedly understand, as perhaps we have allegedly understood for some time, what a "lone wolf" (allegedly) is. So:

Your earnest, seemingly befuddled demand for explanations of precisely how Kach (or Allegedly, Inc., if you prefer) had overseen and supported Goldstein in the details of his attack ... that was a typo, right? Otherwise someone might wonder if you were deliberately throwing the conversation off track. (Same deal with your puzzlement over my error in describing the FBI as identifying Goldestein. An innocent question, or a one-line attempt to avoid actual discussion of Goldstein's actions? Or, again, a typo?)

There is quite a difference between an allegation of such a connection, and a proudly touted action. And the questions were precisely on-track; you were trying to confuse an alleged secret conspiracy between Kach and Goldstein with the typical terrorist organization which arms, trains, sends off, then proudly claims responsibility for it's members actions. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:55, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your insistence that "neither Goldstein or Rudolph are relevant" -- you really meant by this that they deserved a section of their own, yes? Just want to be clear. I missed some elusive shade of meaning in the header, right?

They certainly weren't relevant where they were. As I said above, you were conflating two distinct phenomena. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:55, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Is it my imagination, or have your edits, deletions, and additions here consistently followed a pro-Israel, pro-white-guy pattern? Did you write, just for the sake of balance, a long section on McVeigh or the KKK that somehow got lost in the shuffle? And what, if you don't mind my asking, would make you so very eager to exclude such loathsome characters from an article like this?

Is it my imagination that you are focussing on me, rather than article content? Is it my imagination that you are using sarcasm, innuendo, and mockery as not-so-subtle attempts to put me down? Is it my imagination that your questions have already been answered, but you continue to ask them again anyway? Jayjg ^(talk) 05:55, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Let's clarify: Suicide bombers who slavishly carry out a hatemongering religious agenda, and who imagine they are thereby winning entry to Paradise ... those are bad guys. Racist machine gunners with a hatemongering religious agenda, who imagine they are fulfilling God's will by murdering civilians .... those are bad guys, too, right?

They're both bad-guys, though Goldstein didn't imagine he was fulfilling God's will. All mass murderers are bad guys, but not all mass murderers are terrorists. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:55, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm happy with the new section too. There we agree. Do note, however, that both ("alleged") "lone wolves" and (curiously, in your world, not "alleged") proponents of the "typical terrorist phenomenon," as you put it, target civilians without warning. BrandonYusufToropov 19:00, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Terrorists who proudly claim responsibility for blowing people up are not alleged, but admitted. And regarding targetting civilians without warning, so do mass murderers and serial rapists, but they're not terrorists. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:55, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's hard for me to tell whether you're referring to Goldstein in the reference above to mass murderers, but earlier you claim (through a spirit medium?) to have known what was on his mind before he killed civilians. He was clearly a religious extremist, and the idea that he "didn't imagine he was fulfilling God's will" seems to me difficult to defend. But go ahead.

This whole "alleged' thing, which I do indeed find irritating in the present context, appears to be designed as a fig-leaf for the benefit of Goldstein, the deletion of whose terrorist crimes sparked this little tete a tete. If you mean "alleged" in another way, please do clarify. But for the record, lest there be any doubt that his act was a political one with political consequences:

Tiran Pollak, one of the Kahane Khai leaders, wanted by the police, granted me an interview near the coffin. "Goldstein was not only righteous and holy," he told me, "but also a martyr. Since he is a martyr, his corpse will be buried without being washed, not in a shroud but in his clothes. The honorable Dr. Goldstein has always refused to provide medical help to Arabs. Even during the War for the Galilee he refused to treat any Arab. The Chief Rabbi of the Israeli army, General Gad Navon, at that time contacted Meir Kahane, asking him to persuade Baruch Goldstein of blessed memory to treat the Arabs. But Kahane refused, on the ground that this would be against the Jewish religion."--Ilana Baum

After Goldstein's coffin was brought to Kiryat Arba under heavy military guard, a second run of eulogies was delivered in the hall of the Hesder Yeshiva Nir, i.e., in a military institution. Goldstein was eulogized there by a whole motley of religious settlers, but also by the above mentioned rabbi Dov Lior. Lior said: "Goldstein was full of love for fellow human beings. He dedicated himself to helping others." It should be explained here that terms like "human being" refer in Jewish Orthodox Law [Halacha] only to Jewish human beings. -- Israel Shahak

"The holy martyr Baruch Goldstein is from now on our intercessor in the Heavens. Goldstein didn't act as an individual: He heard the cry of the Land [of Israel] which is being stolen from us day after day by the Muslims. He acted in order to relieve that cry of the Land!" -- Rabbi Israel Ariel

So yeah. He was "allegedly' mixed up with the Kahane folks. There is "allegedly" air to breathe, and gravity "allegedly' pulls objects toward the center of the earth.

Now, I acknowledge that a less bullheaded editor than I would have acceded to your various underhanded attempts to keep Goldstein out of this article. But I do want to be very clear that it is your edits, deletions, and additions I take exception to, not you as a person. Could be I'm off base here, and I've missed some more even-handed aspect of your work. Prove me wrong. BrandonYusufToropov 12:05, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I respect your work Brandon, and I'd like to work co-operatively with you on this and other articles. However, not only have you misrepresented completely what I have been saying, your tone and words here have been such an outrageous violation of the Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Assume good faith policies (particularly the "various underhanded attempts" phrase) that I refuse to respond to your inquisition any further unless some sort of apology is forthcoming. I try to maintain a pretty even keel here, but it is difficult enough in the face of daily abuse from psychotic sockpuppets, I don't need more from you. As a final statement, I will simply direct you to this reversion and this edit I made last month at Baruch Goldstein. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:17, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Whatever. Let's do assume good faith, and maybe talk to each other before deleting substantive material, okay? BrandonYusufToropov 15:33, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Brandon, after following his argument here, that there is a phenomenon of the "lone wolf" terrorist that should be addressed in the article. They would be differentiated from mass murderers because they act out of an extreme political agenda which includes the use of terrorist acts to further their cause. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 23:31, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. This topic deserve its own section (obviously, given the contention here). But the "warnings" section is obviously not that section.

I also suspect this issue would have been better discussed and resolved here before the parties involved engaged in their revert war... it's not like it'll kill anyone to have the page not "their way" for a couple of days. :) -- Wisq 03:59, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC)

That was actually my argument! Moreover, I combined Brendon's additions in their proper place: Independent terrorist actor. It will be better if the issue will be elaborated there, including the thesis of the "lone wolf". MathKnight 07:48, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Lone Wolf attackers

15 words are all that is required to describe Eric Robert Rudolph and his actions, and only 4 are required to describe Timothy McVeigh and his actions, yet apparently a full 70 words are required to describe Baruch Goldstein and his actions, including the date, Muslim festivals, geopolitical situation, the building in which he made his attack, numbers killed and wounded, what the killed were doing at the time, events following his death, his former associations, and detailed descriptions of those groups he was formerly associated with. None of this information is apparently necessary to describe the other "lone wolf" attackers listed in this article. What exactly is it about Goldstein that requires us to use 17 times as many words to describe him and his actions as we need to describe McVeigh? Is it because Goldstein's attack had more overall casualties? No, his attack had the fewest overall casualties, around 130. Is it because he killed the most people? No, McVeigh killed almost 5 times as many people. What is inherently different about Goldstein that he cannot be described in the same paragraph as the other two men, and in a similar manner? Jayjg ^(talk) 05:28, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Look, we had a big dust-up over this before, and the only thing that changed since our identification of a DMZ on this particular passage was that some new editor, unfamiliar with previous conflicts, perhaps, added in the Ramadan details (inelegantly) and I did a style edit to smooth it out. I have no emotional investment in including the Ramadan details, nor did I add them, but I do have a problem with poorly written copy, so that's why I fixed it. If you don't like the additions, let's take them out.

Don't let's launch World War Six on this. Let's just go back to the (presumably non-adrenaline-provoking) version that stood for several months without incident, ok? BrandonYusufToropov 18:53, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not written in stone, that's the beauty of it. The descriptions of the three are obviously not balanced; do you have any answers for the question above besides "it looked this way for two months"? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:19, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I tried. BrandonYusufToropov 21:11, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tried what? To provide some rationale for the discrepancy? I see no evidence of that. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:20, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with BYT's version. It stayed for 2 months without anyone finding anything wrong with it but now some editors want to obfuscate the event.Yuber^(talk) 23:46, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've raised a comprehensive objection, but no-one seems to have a response for it, other than "no-one complained before". That hardly seems like good faith to me. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:50, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Jayjg that it isn't particularly representative as it stands. The duration of this apportionment is rather immaterial. I have found striking errors in article versions which have been 'stable' for years. The wiki is dynamic. El_C 02:36, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Anyways, I fixed the problem.

Guy Montag 02:40, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Copy that. El_C 03:16, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I still fail to understand why Goldstein is the only person whose total victims and location of acts are mentioned. I don't think they are actually relevant to this article, which is discussing the phenomenon, and not specific incidents, but if they are, why they aren't mentioned for all of these people? Jayjg ^(talk) 14:08, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It seems strange that the Unabomber/Theodore Kaczinski and John Allen Mohammed should be mentioned, since no collective motive other than greed and delusion has been demonstrated about their actions. Unless it can be demonstrated that Theodore acknowledged trying to sabotage, say, the federal government, or that John was in any way indoctrinated by the NOI (Nation of Islam) towards achieving self enrichment through extortion, both mentions should be removed. NPOV means that while everyone may have their biases (which no doubt can be valuable in some cases, such as noting blatant twists or omissions), all contributors must not let their biases interfere in the FACTUAL and FAITHFUL reporting of information. Unfortunately, the small changes to this section seem to be representative of an increasingly larger anti White, anti Christian, and anti Muslim bias in favor of a pro Israeli position. How else can the "Christian Identity follower" and "Nation of Islam" member labels be explained. FIrst off, the so called "Christian Identity" isn't a single group to be followed, and mentioning NOI follower would be like mentioning that Kaczinski/Unabomber was Jewish or that he was a university faculty member. They are unrelated in both the Unabomber's and the DC Sniper's case, and in either case would only serve in IMPLYING a racial smear. (See NPOV Guidelines, esp. under Implications) I have no interest in "protecting" either the NOI or the "Christian identity" as I am repulsed at the ideological baggages of both groups, but I am interested in ACCURACY and FAIRNESS at Wikipedia. Marknorth 21:41, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, it's not so clear that Goldstein was a "Kahanist" (whatever that means), for that matter. As for the "independent terrorist actor" or "lone wolf" designations for these people, I haven't actually seen the information that links them all to this designation; it would be nice to see something that did. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:50, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You obviously have strong biases. From Baruch Goldstein's Wikipedia article: "The Kach movement, to which he belonged, was outlawed [by the Israeli governmet]. The victims of the shooting received financial compensation. However, he became a hero to some Israeli right-wing extremists. Members of the outlawed Kach organization glorify his mass murder (claiming that he pre-empted the mass murder of Jews by Arabs). The group claims the following: Kach claims and support for Goldstein

Goldstein supporters make a number of claims, including the following...[goes on with list]" . If it makes you feel better, change Kahanist to Rabbi Kahane's Kach movement, and get rid of "Kahanist".

The fact is, you still haven't addressed the fundamental points of my above post, though. Marknorth 22:07, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, that's been fixed. Please do not use the Talk: page for personal attacks. As for the points of your post not being addressed, if the points in my post aren't addressed, then your points are irrelevant, since these people shouldn't be included at all. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:18, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Which personal attacks, specifically, are you talking about? BrandonYusufToropov 15:04, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We've already fixed the problem with lone wolf sub article. Do not revert to you pov, innacurate version again. Read the discussion.

Guy Montag 02:08, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't see the need for long descriptions of each "lone wolf" terrorist when we already have long articles devoted to each of them. These are simply examples. The article is long already, just mention their names. -Willmcw 19:30, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

That's a new one

"Editing under false pretexts"?

Like I'm really from Neptune or something?

I'm correcting and expanding the article. Examples are nice and balanced, too, as you'll note. If you think there's a POV problem, please specify what you believe it to be so we can all discuss it.

That's the beauty of wikipedia. It's always in motion. BrandonYusufToropov 01:38, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, it is rather hard to see the objection to your recent edit - or why the person who reverted it called it a "revert". - Mustafaa 01:54, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I note, too, that the person objecting to my edit keeps referring me to the talk page, but will provide no response to my request for details about what POV issues, precisely, are troubling him. BrandonYusufToropov 09:12, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You reverted back to a POV version after we spend 3 days discussing how to fix it. You've ignored all the objections cited by the posters in the one wolf sub article above. You said, that unabomber was not acceptable, but instead of erasing him, you also reverted Muhammed, and to a pov version that was originally in dispute. That's false pretexts.

You called Eric Rudolph a Christian extremist, but he is not Christian, he is a member of Christian Identity, a neo nazi group. We are here to make this NPOV, not overtly insert our prejudices.

You cited what each one did, when we have agreed by consensus that we would not cite anyone's actions and let the readers click and get the information themselves.

You poved Baruch Goldstein entry and once again, after being specifically told that this was a POV entry by most involved, reverted back. Once again, things like "racist","Zionist terrorist," are not acceptable. You've showed bad faith by reinserting a pov version into this article.

You erased both the unabomber and the NOI member, but kept Baruch Goldstein.

Most importantly, you disregarded the work of everyone here, and without any note or justification for your changes, reverted back to the version that was in dispute in the first place.

Guy Montag 21:16, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The story so far: Relentless double standard in this article

Here, apparently, are the ground rules:

McVeigh and Rudolph are okay to cite as examples of lone-wolf terrorists, but details about why Baruch Goldstein qualifies as a lone-wolf terrorist should be deleted because he was not trained by any group, nor was he provided with weapons or assistance.

This was the standard certain editors tried to use in first go-round. Maintaining this position requires deliberate ignorance of the dynamic of a lone-wolf terrorist, which the FBI discusses in this article, and which relies on the rather coy principle of "leaderless resistance." (This fact undercuts the Unabomber claim to fall into this category, by the way, which was why I deleted him.)

You haven't actually proven anything other than original research on a settled dispute. Goldstein acted alone. Do you have evidence that he was assisted by a group? If not drop it.

Guy Montag

If he was assisted by a group in the actual crime, Guy, he wouldn't be a lone wolf terrorist. (Like you didn't know that) This is precisely the kind of faux-ignorance Jay tried to use to argue against even mentioning Baruch several months ago. (See below)BrandonYusufToropov 02:06, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yet, despite my patient explanation of this dynamic on multiple occasions on this page, editors have persistently scaled back the references to Goldstein, and have implied, at various points in the discussion, that he either was not affiliated with any political movement, that there is no such thing as a "Kahanist," or that if there was such a thing as a Kahanist, Goldstein was nevertheless a lone nut who had no larger political agenda, comparable to a serial killer. At the risk of repeating myself...

"Kach (Hebrew for 'Only Thus') was founded by radical Israeli-American rabbi Meir Kahane. The stated goal of Kach and its offshoot Kahane Chai, which means 'Kahane Lives,' (founded by Meir Kahane's son Binyamin following his father's assassination in the United States), is to restore the biblical state of Israel. Both organizations were declared terrorist organizations by the Israeli Cabinet in March 1994. [my emphasis--BYT] This followed the groups' statements in support of Dr. Baruch Goldstein's attack in February 1994 on the al-Ibrahimi Mosqueand their verbal attacks on the Israeli Government. Goldstein was affiliated with Kach. [my emphasis -- BYT] [4]

Dangerous verbal attacks. Now that's terrorism.

Guy Montag 00:09, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Goldstein's refusal to give proper medical treatment to non-Jews continued after he was transferred to Kiryat Arba. In his February 27,1994 Yediot Ahronot article, Nahum Barnea wrote:

"The senior Israeli army officer in the Hebron area told me about his two encounters with Baruch Goldstein. The second time he saw him was in the company of Kach goons who were abusing President Ezer Weisman during his visit to Kiryat Arba." [5]

'Okay, there is such a thing as a Kahanist, but details about why Baruch Goldstein qualifies as a lone-wolf terrorist should be deleted because the same level of detail is not given about other lone-wolf terrorists. '

Yet when I tried to supply the same level of detail to the other examples -- entirely warranted expansions in all three cases, since the "lone wolf" phenomenon is not widely understood or reported on, and will be unfamiliar to most readers without specifics -- my edits were instantly reverted.

You supplied innacureate pov information aftet we agreed that people can just click on the articles and read the details.

Guy Montag 00:09, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Okay, but details about why Baruch Goldstein is a lone-wolf terrorist should be deleted because I have determined that consensus exists to excise such references.

Note too that, in the view of those editors who take it as their duty to eliminate unflattering references to Baruch Goldstein, "consensus" exists the instant someone posts a version of the article that downplays his status as a terrorist: "We have agreed by consensus," Guy pronounces.

The multiple editors who have been objecting forcefully to the concerted effort on this page to minimize the level of detail about lone-wolf terrorists in general, and Goldstein in particular, apparently don't exist.

This is an odd kind odd kind of consensus indeed. ("You disregarded the work of everyone here," Guy intones mournfully, after the work that "everyone here" did to establish the previous version, a version that had stood for two months, had been scrapped in a heartbeat. The bewildered editor may wonder what, precisely, constitutes consensus. Of course, the answer is, consensus is, by definition, that which tends to minimize the level of detail about the crimes of Baruch Goldstein.)

Okay, Goldstein apparently qualifies as a lone-wolf terrorist, but details about Goldstein should be deleted because using the words "Zionist" and "racist" are"POV" "not acceptable."

To whom, if I may ask, are they not acceptable? And what, specifically, is POV about these terms in relation to Goldstein? Are you saying he wasn't a Zionist? Are you saying Kach isn't a racist organization? The Israeli Supreme Court disagrees, as does the text of Kach! BrandonYusufToropov 00:07, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Are you done feeling sorry for yourself? Then lets get back to the actual debate.

Guy Montag 23:54, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actual debate is about these questions, which for some reason you don't want to answer:

To whom are the terms "racist" and "Zionist" not "acceptable"? It's your word, you used it, I am curious about why.

Are you saying he isnt a Zionist? Are you saying Kach isn't a racist organization?

Please be specific in your responses. They're pretty simple questions. BrandonYusufToropov 02:06, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Do we need examples at all?

What is the importance of listing these three terrorists here? There is already a linked article on the topic. If we can't agree then I suggest we cut them out. Cheers, -Willmcw 00:15, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Deleting all examples from an article about a topic of this level of interest seems surrealistically misguided to me. But if you really mean to delete all the existing references to ...

al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades

.... and the entire section "Examples of Terrorism," go ahead and try. My guess is it will be a very weird-looking article, and will not stand for long. BrandonYusufToropov 00:30, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Do each of those examples come with a paragraph of explanation, like the "lone wolves" do? -Willmcw 00:40, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Did you get the chance to read my notes above, which covers the issue of why we need specific details on these examples? BrandonYusufToropov 01:16, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This indeed is a problem, Will. When I re-examined all the terrorist attacks listed on this page several days ago, after an editor added to the already lengthy Goldstein descriptiong, it was immediately quite appparent that only attack that has a paragraph describing it, was in fact that of Goldstein. This was particularly striking when the description of Goldstein was compared to the other two "lone wolf" terrorists, who were mentioned extremely briefly (one had a mere 4 word description). When I rectified this issue, a revert war ensued, with one editor insisting that "no-one complained for two months, so the article shouldn't be changed" and another simply reverting because that is his common mode of editing. Eventually, in what appears to be a desperate attempt to include a lengthy description of Goldstein's acts (for which there already exists an article), lengthy descriptions of the acts of the other two "lone wolf" terrorists were included. Of course this still begs the question; why would we need have detailed descriptions of the actions of these individuals, when this is an overview of the phenomenon, not individual acts, and when the many other acts listed on the page (rightly) do not have lengthy descriptions? And the second question which arises is "exactly who has designated Goldstein as a lone wolf terrorist"? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:50, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't quite understand why you're trying to rid the article of content. It's very interesting and informative. I understand why you want one of the terrorists to disappear but he existed, did what is claimed and cannot be expunged from the record, unfortunately. Grace Note 04:31, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you don't understand why I'm trying to "rid the article of content", then you haven't read my comment just above, or those of Willmcw or El C before that. And for someone who once complained rather vociferously about my poisoning the well thus making further discussion impossible,[6] I'm astonished you would do the same thing here ("I understand why you want one of the terrorists to disappear etc."). All I can say in response is "The irony is so rich it could buy France!".[7] Anyway, before editing again please try to address the specific comment and questions raised in my previous comments, as well as those raised by Willmcw and El C. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:44, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't feel there needs to be a paragraph on each example. This leads to POV, as so many examples are left out. If we write that "some examples are:" then give some names without lengthy descriptions, people can always click on their names to find out more, and it doesn't look like we're saying "These guys who each have a paragraph are the only terrorists." IMO --Silversmith Hewwo 10:11, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, on further review, I don't mind the version with more info on each, but the article Independent terrorist actor is really small, and perhaps the information should just be there. I still dont think it's really necessary here, as more info is only a click away. --Silversmith Hewwo 19:38, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You have a point about the Independent terrorist actor article; however, we are in agreement (and apparently so are others) that the inclusion of a paragraph on each of these individuals fails to address the fundamental question, why single out these acts for paragraph descriptions in this article, while dozens of other incidents mentioned on this page do not recieve similar detail? Well, actually, the answer to the question about why the others don't receive this treatment is straightforward, it's because that level of detail is inappropriate for this article. The only real question is why these individuals have this inappropriate level of detail regarding them? Looking through the history of the article, the answers have to do with POV pushing, and it's not pretty. A second unanswered question is who designated these individuals as "Independent terrorist actors"? It smacks of original research to me; witness the disagreement about the Unabomber and John Allen Muhammad. I'll move any relevant information to the Independent terrorist actor article for now, and re-pose the original research question there. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:44, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree that expanding on some examples here is almost necessarily POV because of the selection process, and also because of the lack of sources designating these people as lone-wolf terrorists, so that the section is in danger of consisting of original research. This is about terrorism, not individual terrorists, so the information about individuals belongs in Independent terrorist actor. I'd also say there's a problem on that page too with lack of sources, and with the title: I've never heard the expression "independent terrorist actor" outside Wikipedia, and a Google search seems to return only Wikipedia mirrors. The best thing would be to work on getting Independent terrorist actor in order, perhaps with a new title, and link from here to there but without doubling up the information. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:58, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Re: "this is about terrorism, not individual terrorists": are you suggesting that we eliminate any named individuals from the text of this article? BrandonYusufToropov 22:46, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So put in more detail about other terrorist acts. And Slim, your argument is preposterous. No one is being excluded. That would be POV. It's not "POV" to include things you and Jay don't want to see in articles and repeatedly saying so doesn't make it so. Grace Note 23:03, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

All I'm saying is (a) there's no point in having Independent terrorist actor if the contents are going to be repeated in their entirety here; (b) if they're not repeated in their entirety, the question arises as to which ones to include and which not, and that's a POV battleground, easily avoided; and (c) both here and there, the editors including these lone-wolf figures need to find sources that (i) properly define what a lone-wolf terrorist is, as opposed to a criminal, and (ii) attribute that status to each of the people included. I'm not sure I would call John Allen Muhammad a lone-wolf terrorist, for example, but this is in part because I have a problem using the label "terrorist": it always seems to lead to pointless arguments about who is more evil than whom. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:28, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Why on earth would you want to include more detail about other terrorist acts, thus duplicating information found elsewhere in Wikipedia? Remember, this is an online encyclopedia with active links that one can simply click on if one needs more information. Duplication across multiple articles inevitably leads to divergence of content; indeed, the many places which mention (for example) Kach and Goldstein already diverge in content. Moreover, this article is not a detailed description of terrorist acts, or even a summary list of them; we have plenty of articles for that (e.g. List of terrorist incidents). Rather, it is a discussion of the phenomenon itself, meaning, history, causes, types, responses, etc. If we don't restrict article content to immediately relevant material, then articles inevitably become overlengthy, unfocussed, and difficult to read. As well, there are serious and unanswered WP:NOR questions about assigning individuals to the "Independent terrorist actor" category, and indeed to the whole phenomenon itself, since the only sources for it appear to be Wikipedia, its mirrors, and a CNN story about an FBI report. Finally, please respond by arguing the issues, rather than making baldly insulting assertions (e.g. "your argument is ridiculous") or poisoning the well (e.g. "things you and Jay don't want to see in articles"). Jayjg ^(talk) 23:32, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It would be greatly appreciated if good faith would be assumed. These comments are tiresome, and if everyone were to do it, we'd have meltdown - so those of you doing it are freeloaders. Jay's right: this is an article about terrorism, not a list of terrorists or a list of incidents. More importantly, the editors reverting to the longer version have been asked to cite credible sources. It would be good if that could be done, plus some serious discussion, rather than blind reverting. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:46, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

The point of including a synopsis of details about "lone wolf" actors is to point out the fact that terrorism comes in many forms. We should add info on state sponsored terrorism too. zen master T 01:43, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What do the extraneous details added specifically add? Particularly given their inclusion in the "see Independent terrorist actor" inclusion directly below? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:27, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

(edit conflict) About the name Independent terrorist actor, why isn't it Lone wolf terrorists? That ties in with this article better, although it only comes up with 510 google hits. "Individual terrorists" comes up with about 21,000 google hits, and "Independent terrorists" with 352. So Google-wise Individual terrorists is the most popular by far. I like the "lone wolf" option though, as it explains a term as well as listing individuals. --Silversmith Hewwo 00:00, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree; that's a much better name and it has a specific definition, unlike the current title, which doesn't seem to be used by anyone other than us. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:09, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Given that wikipedia is international, I wonder if there is one example of a lone-wolf that would be most familiar. I think McVeigh is perhaps the only one in that category - and have doubts even about how notorious even he is
The article is mostly about defining terrorism, not about all examples. Examples should be given only to illustrate points of definition, not to present an exhaustive list. Which best illustrates the point? There is some doubt about McVeigh acting alone? Some doubt the Israeli shooter acted alone too, no? Rudolf only got help in the form of food, it seems - yet he is less likely to be remembered a year from now & less likely to be known internationally
--JimWae 04:31, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)

Perhaps we don't have to give any real life examples on this article. Perhaps we can describe in good detail what the term "lone wolf terrorist" means, give a hypothetical, and say "for examples of lone wolf terrorists and their actions see: Lone wolf terrorists." --Silversmith Hewwo 09:29, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Examples of lone wolf terrorism are essential to any meaningful understanding of the phenomenon; they provide the appropriate level of detail for this article.

If anyone has evidence that Goldstein had logistical support in carrying out the killings, please point me towards it -- everything I have seen (including the article citation below from Summer 2001) seems to suggest he was a member of Kach who took this on independently. BrandonYusufToropov

I'm still waiting for a logical argument as to what this detail adds here, beyond bald assertions that it adds something "meaningful" or "essential" or "appropriate". Does anyone have an argument that actually addresses this? As it is, the challenge that Willmcw made three days ago at the top of this section still stands: What is the importance of listing these three terrorists here? There is already a linked article on the topic. If we can't agree then I suggest we cut them out. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:33, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

One argument is that the article should detail all forms of terrorism. Are we all agreed they should be mentioned and this dispute is over how much space should be devoted? In my opinion the slightly longer version conveys the right amount of context. Though separately, I have a problem with "lone wolf" in that section because it presumes a conclusion they acted alone and has unnecessary connotations. "Solo" would increase clarity and be less POV. zen master T 20:42, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The only way this "slightly longer version" would make sense would be if we devoted a similar amount of detail to the dozens of other incidents mention on this page. Certainly, this unequal treatment cannot stand. Moreover, if we did devote this amount of detail to every other attack, then the page would quickly double in size, and would become unreadable; as it is, the page is already 30K. No-one has yet addressed these two points. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:09, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Right, but the issue is not that it should detail all forms, but rather why it needs to have lengthy descriptions only for Goldstein's actions (or more recently only for the actions of three "lone wolf" terrorists). The specific details of the attacks do not seem to add to elucidating the phenomenon itself, as many people here have pointed out. As well, we don't provide details on other attacks, and in response to the suggestion we should, that would obviously make the article ridiculously long, and would cover material already covered in List of terrorist incidents. I'm still waiting

Another argument is that the nature of the phenomenon is unlikely to be clear from a single example, inasumuch as lone wolves are eager to be mistaken for simple sociopaths. (And often pretty good at it.)

I notice you're no longer accusing me of making up the "lone wolf" designation for Goldstein.

Since we're apparently answering each other's questions now ...

On June 8, Jay, you wrote, in response to MarkNorth:

Please do not use the Talk: page for personal attacks.

Shortly thereafter, I asked you:

Which personal attacks, specifically, are you talking about? BrandonYusufToropov 15:04, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Never got an answer. You must have been busy. I trust you weren't trying to undermine a point someone else was making, and intimidate them from posting on this page, by making an aggressive accusation that had no basis in fact? Presumably there was some personal attack he made in that exchange? Can you identify it for us?

See also the questions below concerning Guy's odd declaration about what is "acceptable" (to him? to you?) in this article. He's been strangely silent on the point, but since we're all chatting nicely again, perhaps you could fill me in on your take on these issues. BrandonYusufToropov 20:57, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Brandon, as you know, I never accused you of 'making up the "lone wolf" designation for Goldstein', I merely (and properly) asked for a source for the claim, which was apparently boiled down to one link to a partial summary of an article dredged up through Google which no-one here has apparently read. As well, I've explained to you long ago why there is no point in my responding to your statements: When it comes to me, for some reason, you cannot desist from making personal attacks and/or false accusations, nor (apparently) can you apologize for them - see, for example, your latest comment to me above, which contains both a false accusation and some nasty innuendo. Perhaps you have a different standard for personal attacks, if you cannot see that a person (such as Marknorth) who prefaces his very first response to me with the statement "You obviously have strong biases" is making a personal attack. Regardless of the reason, I do not waste my time responding to you, as my time is spent more profitably discussing these matters with people who can communicate with me in a non-policy violating and altogether more collegial way. If you ever decide to return to norms of Wikipedia communication, and apologize for your many previous violations, please let me know. Cheers, Jayjg ^(talk) 21:36, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, I for one tend toward the minimalist side here. Maybe a little detail to help people what's meant by lone-wolfism, but keep most in the links.--John Z 00:01, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

IRA

I was wondering why there is no mention of the IRA (Irish Republican Army) in the article? Does anyone feel they shouldn't be included? Here is a list of some of their acts violence:

the July 1972 bombing spree known as Bloody Friday, in which downtown Belfast was rocked by 22 bombs in 75 minutes, leaving nine dead and 130 injured;
the 1979 assassination of Lord Mountbatten, Queen Elizabeth II’s uncle;
the 1984 bombing of a Brighton hotel where then British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and her cabinet were meeting, which wounded several British officials and killed four other Britons;
a 1993 car bombing in London’s financial district that killed one person and caused $1 billion of damage;
mortar attacks on the British prime minister’s 10 Downing Street residence and London’s Heathrow Airport in the early 1990s;
and high-profile bombings of civilian targets, including pubs and subway stations, in Northern Ireland and mainland Britain throughout the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s.
BBC news article.

I would just add them myself, but I've never edited this article before, and someone else may have a better idea of where they should go. --Silversmith Hewwo 10:30, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Good point, I think it's very odd that they aren't mentioned here. The only reason I can think of might be due to argument - the IRA are considered 'freedom fighters' in some countries. Also, the section about charity funding of terrorism could definitely benefit from some material on the IRA - particularly the support they draw in the US and Scotland. Go ahead and add the material, although maybe don't metion Sinn Fein if you don't want a revert war. illWill 18:41, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

They may be considered "freedom fighters" in some countries but they are widely considered to be terrorists in others, so I don't think there's any problem with including them. They've been left out for the obvious reason, I think, and should be put in. Go ahead, Silversmith.Grace Note 23:13, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Goldstein was identified as a lone wolf terrorist in Summer 2001

Here's the Google listing (subscrip necessary for whole article)

[PDF] A Tertiary Model for Countering Terrorism in Liberal Democracies ... File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat Baruch Goldstein was identified as a ‘lone wolf’ at the. time – he committed the massacre at the Tomb of the Patriarchs on his own ...

Further research identifies the publication as:

Terrorism and Political Violence

 	Publisher:  	Routledge, part of the Taylor & Francis Group
 	Issue:  	Volume 13, Number 2 / Summer 2001
 	Pages:  	1 - 26

Article title: A Tertiary Model for Countering Terrorism in Liberal Democracies ...

Let's stop playing games and write a responsible article, okay? BrandonYusufToropov 02:18, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Third time I have posed these simple questions for Guy

(What with all the hullaballoo on this page, though, he may have simply not noticed them.)

To whom are the terms "racist" and "Zionist" not "acceptable"? It's your word, you used it, I am curious about why.

Are you saying he wasn't a Zionist? Are you saying Kach isn't a racist organization?

Please be specific in your responses. They're pretty simple questions. BrandonYusufToropov 11:54, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Alone or with friends?

How many people can participate in an act of "Lone Wolf" terrorism? The Oklahoma City bombing was conducted by McVeigh and McNichols. Dual wolf terrorism? -Willmcw 19:22, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Good question. Another question is, whose designation of someone as a "Lone Wolf" is authoritative? Shouldn't these people have a description something like "designated as a "Lone Wolf" by the FBI" or something like that? Not in this article of course, where there's already far too much information about them, but in the relevant article? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:38, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Vote on "Lone Wolf" section

In attempting to ascertain what consensus is on this issue, I'm requesting a vote on the "Lone Wolf" section. As I understand it, the options are:

Present the information in a single paragraph briefly listing all three individuals, and rely on links for further information

Jayjg ^(talk) 18:49, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Tomer ^TALK 21:16, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
illWill 21:44, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Silversmith Hewwo 22:52, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
These should just be examples. We already have articles on each person, and an article on the subtopic. This article is quite long and duplicating info available elsewhere is unnecessary. Willmcw 23:19, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:26, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
Guy Montag 06:48, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC) There is no need to duplicate sections already in existance on other articles. It will lead to divergent information and open up POV issues because information would be subjectively selected.
John Z 01:44, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
--Briangotts 02:14, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
--Stereotek 20:25, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
←Humus sapiens←Talk 01:21, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Provide a detailed paragraph on each of the three examples used, for context

Comments

Whichever. Just as long as nobody gets to cover up terrorism that they happen to agree with. — Chameleon 19:45, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't think we need a bullet point for each individual, the paragraph before the bullets is fine, and then a brief list of the individuals and their political motivations would do (if I am correct in assuming that terrorist attacks always have a political motivation). As has been said before, we don't have an explanation on every terrorist attack (or even campaign) for reasons of space, so I don't think we need to desrcibe their attacks in detail. Also, can we add David Copeland to the list.illWill 20:15, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

At a minimum, the three instances should be put in chronological order, not the current order which appears only to highlight some editors anti-Christian bias.Nobs01 20:34, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This whole section needs a severe overhaul, as in its current form it's repulsively POV. Tomer ^TALK 21:18, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

I'm a little wary of voting on anything until we get a clearer sense of which "brief text" we're talking about and how the three individuals in question will be identified. Writiing should be concise and informative, esp. in WP.

I think it's important that we offer enough context for people to understand (in brief) what motivated these people before we just say "check the links."

It's clear so far that the consensus is away from bullet points, but we do want to make sure we're not airbrushing away anything truly important in any of these three examples. BrandonYusufToropov 13:47, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Here's a start: "Those sometimes cited as "lone wolves" include Christian Identity follower Eric Robert Rudolph, The Turner Diaries inspired Timothy McVeigh, Kahanist Baruch Goldstein, neo-Nazi David Copeland and Aryan Nations member Buford O. Furrow, Jr.. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:07, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's a good start, but, I think, problematic by definition, because these people distance themselves from the groups in question, and the above makes it look like they were operating as part of a group.

There is no logical reason not to specify what these people did, and every logical reason to focus on them as individuals.

Suppose we took the chronological approach:

Terrorists cited as "lone wolves" include Baruch Goldstein, who murdered 29 Muslim civilians in the Cave of the Patriarchs (1994); Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh (1995), Centennial Olympic park bomber Eric Robert Rudolph (1996), "London Nailbomber" David Copeland (1999), and Buford O. Furrow, Jr., who launched a murderous assault on a daycare center (1999).

What think? BrandonYusufToropov 16:59, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

hahaha. First thoughts: "whatever it takes to get Goldstein mentioned prominently!" Of course that's how this whole thing started... Where does the FBI classify Goldstein as a "lone wolf"? What terrorists do anything but "murder"? What terrorist murders anyone but "civilians"? bleh. More constructive thoughts when time permits. :-p Tomer ^TALK 17:38, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

As opposed to "Whatever it takes to get Goldstein out of the article or, failing that, to bury him in the middle of the paragraph?" At least my sequence has a logical order... Also please note that WP has (or should have) no nationalistic focus, so requiring FBI to identify and label everyone on the list is not appropriate. Goldstein was identified as a "lone wolf" in a 2001 academic journal on terrorism (see above). BrandonYusufToropov 21:10, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No point in getting testy. You asked for thoughts, that was my first thought. I never said anything about "burying" any reference to Goldstein, nor did I recommend excising any mention of him, that was simply my first thought when I read your "improvement" on Jay's proposal. Keep smiling. :-) Tomer ^TALK 21:13, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Didn't mean to come off testy, sorry if I did -- that's the trouble here, of course -- you run down the list of relevant points, address them all, and sign your name, and there's no body language or tonality you can use to make it clear you're still listening. Probably need to use smilies more. And I am in a pretty good mood today, so ... (recedes calmly into sunset, humming "Always Look On the Bright Side of Life...") BrandonYusufToropov 21:34, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

An important issue remains with the version you propose, similar to (though not as severe) as the previous version that lasted for two months; specifically, that Goldstein's crimes are listed in greater detail than anyone else's. Perhaps this is an unconscious reaction to the belief that editors are trying to remove Goldstein or whitewash him, but, if so, it is an over-reaction. As can be readily seen, in the version you propose Goldstein's acts are the only ones which list the number of victims and their religions; the only other person who is described in any detail is Furrow, and even then the obvious fact that his crimes were religiously/ethnically motivated (he attacked a Jewish daycare center) is not even alluded to. Related comments re: ethnicity/sexual orientation of victims apply to David Copeland. And the solution is not to give lengthier descriptions of all the other crimes as well; again, this article should contain the links, not the detail. Since you're going for identification by the scene of the crime, rather than the beliefs of the perpetrator, I think a more reasonable summary would be:

"Terrorists cited as "lone wolves" include Cave of the Patriarchs gunman Baruch Goldstein (1994), Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh (1995), Centennial Olympic park bomber Eric Robert Rudolph (1996), "London Nailbomber" David Copeland (1999), and North Valley Jewish Community Center gunman Buford O. Furrow, Jr. (1999)."

--Jayjg ^(talk) 28 June 2005 16:36 (UTC)

That certainly works for me. What do other people think? BrandonYusufToropov 28 June 2005 17:09 (UTC)

That looks concise. -Willmcw June 28, 2005 20:39 (UTC)

Color me pleased as punch. For a far more problematic issue, anyone who's interested, please see the following section, as, IMHO, it's a much more pressing concern, from the perspective of encyclopædicity especially... Tomer ^TALK June 29, 2005 07:31 (UTC)