The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. There is consensus that the article should not remain the dictionary definition and semi-fork of Terrorism that is is now. But there is no consensus what it should become (a redirect or a dab page, to where, with or without merging). These solutions can all be implemented without deleting the page. Nobody can reasonably want this article to become a red link, so deleting the article would not help solve the disagreement about what it should become. This needs to be resolved editorially on the talk page, perhaps via an RfC.  Sandstein  06:41, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Terror[edit]

Terror (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Pov fork of Terrorism Tentontunic (talk) 10:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete "Terror" is an emotion, this article has absolutely nothing to do with it. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 11:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as POVfork of massive proportions with absolutely no individual notability for its status on Wikipedia - the dab page Terror was usurped for this - while we already have several hundred articles with "terrorism" in their titles - as well as the specific article Terrorism. No need for the two articles whatsoever. Oh - not to mention the "terrorist" articles to boot. I can hardly think of a less necessary new article than this one. Collect (talk) 12:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep "Terror practiced by a government in office appears as law enforcement and is directed against the opposition, while terrorism on the other hand implies open defiance of the law and is the means whereby an opposition aims to demoralize government authority". (R.Thackrah, my emphasis)[1] We have articles Reign of Terror, Red Terror, Red Terror (Hungary),Red Terror (Spain),Red Terror (Ethiopia), Red Terror (China), Red Terror (Finland), White Terror, First White Terror, Second White Terror, White Terror (Russia), White Terror (Hungary), White Terror (Spain) and White Terror (Republic of China). This is a significant subject that requires its own main article. TFD (talk) 12:41, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Then why did the original Terror page state Terrorism, the fact of performing acts of terror, as defined above.? That is, defining terror as a verb, and terrorism as the act entailed by the verb? Collect (talk) 13:16, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am more concerned with how these topics are discussed in reliable sources than how a Wikipedia editor described them. TFD (talk) 14:19, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would US court decisions be "reliable" as far as definitions are concerned? [2] And UN treaties defining "terrorism"? Yet you place Forte well above such minor things as treaties and legal definitions. All of which, I assure you, are not simply the wandering thoughts of WP editors searching for ways to define the deaths in Hungary in 1956 as due to the insurgency. I believe you have been well apprised of all the definitions in the past ... but [3] should refresh your memory. Frankly, "tendentious" understates the way this has been handled by folks who find US law, British law, International law, and legal dictionaries, and treaties to be somehow "unreliable". Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The court decision you mention uses Forte's book, Terror and Terrorism: There is a Difference for its definition of "terrorism". (See II Scope of Review, E Political Offense Exception, 1. Definition) TFD (talk) 16:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Read the decision, and not just the footnotes. The decision itself relies on the legal definition of "terrorism" and does not adopt a different definition. Collect (talk) 18:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of reading between the lines, read what the court wrote. They use a definition that distinguishes between terror and terrorism. Anyway, you brought up the example. You should have read it first. Next time, find a source that supports rather than contradicts your view. TFD (talk) 02:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Word "terrorism" originated from Reign of Terror in France, and many authors (like Karl Kautsky) do not make any distinction. Assuming that you are right, this is fork of political repression. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 13:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are right, these two article tell essentially the same. To merge them would be a correct step, that would differentiate the contemporary meaning of the word "terrorism" (the acts of NGOs against some state) and "terror"/"repressions" (the acts of some state against its own or foreign civilians).--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:29, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Perez Hilton --TitanOne (talk) 13:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a dictionary definition and a needless fork of terrorism. Carrite (talk) 15:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete dictdef and fork of terrorism. —Lowellian (reply) 19:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This article describes terror/terrorism by state. Therefore, this is fork of state terrorism. For example, bombing of Korean Air Flight 858 by Korean state agents was described as "terrorism" rather than "terror" by every source. An act of terrorism, such as blowing airplanes or city buses, remain an act of terrorism, no matter if committed by "lone wolfs" or governmental agents. Besides, "war on terror" and "war on terrorism" mean exactly the same. Terror also means "fear". This should be in a dictionary. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 01:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it is a POV fork, it should be merged to the terrorism article. However, this proposal seems to be unsupported by consensus.
It cannot be deleted due to low notability (for obvious reason).
It cannot be deleted because the term "Terror" is emotionally loaded: "terrorism" is equally loaded term.
To merge it with Perez Hilton is also not a good idea, although it sounds not too unreasonable when compared with other proposals.
The article cannot be deleted just because "War on terror" and "war on terrorism" mean exactly the same: these two phrases are taken from contemporary propaganda articles, and we cannot build WP based on what propaganda says, even when it is democratic propaganda. My conclusion is: to delete the article you must provide some more serious arguments.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:05, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Fear which is the same topic, so far as the emotion is concerned. The political noise should be left for the terrorism article. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect and remake Redirect to Fear as CW. However, I disagree completely about the nature of this disagreement. The court case is a possible source toward the creation of an Apolitical terror article. The court case bases its examination of the defendant's right to extradition under the Convention on Extradition Between the Government of the United States and the Government of the State of Israel on the issue of whether his killings were perpetrated to achieve a political end. The definition of political offence adds to terrorism a dimension that is not found in terror. The court also considers Forte's book, among others, when defining what it calls the "Political Offense Exception". Anarchangel (talk) 10:19, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Convert into a disambiguation page with the possible targets of Fear and Terrorism. Both targets are very likely so choosing one over the other makes things more difficult on our readers. Kansan (talk) 00:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Dab per Kansadn. Qrsdogg (talk) 03:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: "Support" above appears to be "support deletion." Several editors appear to use that term. Collect (talk) 21:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. For the reasons described by me earlier. In response to "POV FORK" rationale: I would like to see what concrete POV this article pushes, otherwise we can hardly speak about any POV Forking.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article. As Wikipedia does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be merged, or nominated for deletion. is clearly the case at hand, as Terrorism was listed on the Terror dab page. WP has no history of allowing two articles which are essentially on the same topic. The guideline uis crystal clear. Collect (talk) 23:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and recreate as a Dab page, merge various bits into Fear and Terrorism. I tried to save this article but I realise that this is not a dictionary. --Martin (talk) 23:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Horror and terror and discuss as a valid psychological phenomenon. bd2412 T 00:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment See Murder Act 1751 Here is an example of the use of terror but not terrorism: The Murder Act started: "WHEREAS horrid crime of murder has of late been more frequently perpetrated than formerly, and particularly in and near the metropolis of this kingdom, contrary to the known humanity and natural genius of the British nation: and whereas it is thereby become necessary, that some further terror and peculiar mark of infamy be added to the punishment of death, now by law inflicted on such as shall be guilty of the said heinous offence". The wording is specific the British parliament were not trying to frighten people but to terrorise them, as at the time it was a common belief within the Britain that without an intact body it was difficult to impossible to rise on judgement day. Given this information I think that some of the opinions expressed above are off target.-- PBS (talk) 16:31, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While the idiomatic use of the term "terror" in the 18th century is certainly interesting, I think WP:NOT#DICTIONARY would apply. --Martin (talk) 19:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.