Igor21

Hola Igor. I understand your concerns. I am here to help. Just calm down and we'll do our best to sort this out. I've created User talk:FayssalF/11M. Saludos cordiales. -- Szvest 13:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Randroide 18:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by administrators or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. Randroide 16:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm an administrator who learned about a dispute through WP:PAIN. Apparently collaboration on that article has gone more smoothly at the Spanish language edition than at the English language one. I'm not sure why - maybe sources are getting handled differently there or maybe it's just a bit harder to hit the right tone in one's second language.

A couple of things caught my attention. First, it's counterproductive to speculate about the mental health of other Wikipedia editors. Second, either a source satisfies Wikipedia:Reliable sources or it doesn't. If a source you don't like happens to meet that standard, then find other reliable sources to support your view. Third, if you don't think an article belongs in Wikipedia then you can nominate it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.

You've already received one block warning. This one's a second block warning - you seem to know enough about the subject to edit productively and I'd rather see the English Wikipedia benefit from your participation. Durova 03:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Randroide 17:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC) Igor21 wrote in Talk:11 March 2004 Madrid train bombings:when PP and PSOE agree in doing dirty war against ETA terrorists in the 80's...There are many sources for this. The most easy to find is a front page article in magazine Epoca entitled "Comienza la guerra sucia" ("Dirty war starts"). There it explains a meeting between Gonzalez and Fraga in the country house of the latter. It says that shorly after Manglano, Casinello and Galindo have held some operational meetings and were destined to Basc Country. This article was published some weeks before the GAL started its actions. I do not have the exact date because I lost my archive in a change of house. (bolds added by me)Reply

There´s a problem:

1. The Grupos Antiterroristas de Liberación started in 1983.

2. The first "Época" was published in 1985 [1].

So, you are still a libelist, Igor21.

• First: You accused, without sources, the spanish PP party of complicity with the PSOE (and its leader as AP Manuel Fraga) in the creation of the GAL death squad.
• Second: You provided me with a false source.

Do something about this issue, and the sooner the better, or I would be forced to request administrative intervention.

Remember that: "Unsourced or poorly sourced controversial (negative, positive, or just highly questionable) material about living persons should be removed immediately from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, and user pages"Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons.

I suggest you to ask an administrator about what to do if you have not a proper source for your (so far) libelious claim about Manuel Fraga.

Hi Igor,

There is no need for you to apologize to me, I just saw that the discussion on Friday was getting out of hand and that Randroide was almost certainly trying to use it as a means to get you banned. He acted a bit like a footballer who dives in the penalty area to try and get a penalty, he should have got a yellow card for it but at least he didn’t get the penalty he was looking for! I don’t think you should feel that you can’t participate as fully as any other user in the debate, you just have to avoid attempts to provoke you because you’ve been given a warning. In the end Wikipedia is about being patient, and looking for what may be imperfect solutions, but which at least allow some progress to be made. I don’t know whether an RFC will help the situation or not, but I suppose if we are not prepared to try it then we can’t make a proper judgement on its usefulness. I would appreciate any input you have on the possible points of dispute I posted on the discussion page yesterday – put your comments there if you have any and then we can try and move forward again.

Cheers, Southofwatford 15:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi Igor - yes, I think we go ahead with the RFC, I just need a bit of time to prepare an introduction and describe the issues. I will try and do something this evening when I am at home. Then Randroide can add his own description to each section before we submit for RFC - life is too short to look for a common wording agreed by everyone.

Cheers, Southofwatford 16:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Randroide 12:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)I posted this accusation in Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. I post the accusation here to provide a reference about the credibility of User:Igor21 when he writes slanderous remarks about me [2].Reply

Talk:11 March 2004 Madrid train bombings

(Note: An spanish speaking administrator is a plus -not a must- for this issue)

One: User:Igor21 wrote: I forgott to speak about Anson and La Razon. Anson was involved in a attempt of military coup in the 80s.[3]

"Anson" is w:es:Luis María Anson, a famous living spaniard.

Igor21 provided no source whatsoever.

Two: User:Igor21 wrote: now that it is possible to demonstrate that Pedro J was favourishing the creation of the death squads[4]

"Pedro J" is Pedro J. Ramírez.

The "source" provided is an unrelated quote taken from interventions in a blog. [5].

I asked the user if he checked the unrelated quotation, he gave no answer.

Three: User:Igor21 wrote:So when PP and PSOE agree in doing dirty war against ETA terrorists in the 80's... [6]

I asked four thrice for a source for this bold affirmation. He gave me a rather vague source:

There are many sources for this. The most easy to find is a front page article in magazine Epoca entitled "Comienza la guerra sucia" ("Dirty war starts"). There it explains a meeting between Gonzalez and Fraga in the country house of the latter. It says that shorly after Manglano, Casinello and Galindo have held some operational meetings and were destined to Basc Country. This article was published some weeks before the GAL started its actions. I do not have the exact date because I lost my archive in a change of house. Anyway this is not the issue here. [7]

"Fraga" is Manuel Fraga, a famous living spanish politician.

The "source" given by Igor21 does not exist, due to two simple facts.

• 1. The Grupos Antiterroristas de Liberación criminal actions started in october 1983.

• 2. The first "Época" magazine was published in march 1985 [8].

After this gaffe, Igor21 wrote:

I have been trying to remember and my memory has bring me a surprising recall. I think that the source was Cambio 16 (the rest of the details are the same) that at this time was directed by Pedro J and was a fan of the dirty war as you can see in this link http://www.libertaddigital.com/bitacora/piomoa/comentarios.php?id=1518&num=3. [9]

Now "he thinks" it was the magazine Cambio 16. After this he wrote a text in spanish in my user page [10] where he writes further unsourced accusations against Fraga an Pedro J Ramírez. He also talks about the source he has not been able to provide as the "mysterious source".

I asked Igor21 for a formal statement about that "mysterious source", because I wanted to check his assertions in the library and I do not want to go there every time Igor21 has a surprising recall about the "mysterious source". He made no such statement.

Finally:

I gave the User the link to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and asked him for sources several times, with no success.

AFAIK this is libel against Manuel Fraga, w:es:Luis María Anson and Pedro J. Ramírez.

If someone is coming here from the talk page of 11-M bombing in Spain, he will know Randroide and do not need any comment. People arriving here from other places are encouraged to see what Randroide has done in the talk page. Regarding these ilustrious gentlemen who supposedly I have libeled, once we finish the editing of 11-M, we can discuss their past doings in their respective pages. The reason why I do not want to continue with this discussion now is because Randroide is trying to put his conspiracy theories about the bombings (the Spanish socialdemocrat party collaborates with a terrorist group ETA in killing near 200 hundred innocents and now all the newspapers of the world are trying to hide the truth) and I have no time to do so many things at the same time. If you are an admin and you have a free hour, please take a look to the 11-M talk page and tell us (meaning me and the rest of editors who are not Randroide) if there is any practical solution for the article different from abandoning it to the conspirationist theories of Randroide. I came here because when we manage to more or less control the problem in Spanish wikipedia, we noticed that Randroide was coming to English wikipedia to spread the conspirationist theories. Since then, I am trying with a couple of editors to find way to do something correct with the article in the same line as what has been done with 9/11. To know who is Randroide and what is doing here you can check http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gimferrer&diff=prev&oldid=62766662 . I want to formally apologize to the editors of this wikipedia for what my compatriot is doing here. I tried to warn the first day in the cafe but nobody heared me.--Igor21 16:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Randroide 16:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Igor21 wrote: Randroide is trying to put his conspiracy theories about the bombings (the Spanish socialdemocrat party collaborates with a terrorist group ETA in killing near 200 hundred innocents and now all the newspapers of the world are trying to hide the truth)

Where is my edit doing that, Igor21?, i.e., where is my edit saying that "the Spanish socialdemocrat party collaborates with a terrorist group ETA...".

You do not do edits Randroide, you do OCEANS and the full life of Cousteau would be needed to do a full compilation of your sayings. Regarding the particular thing you are asking, this is the stance of the people you are defending as it has been explained to you in the talk page of 11-M (and BTW as you knew from the begining). I know how you love collateral discussions to evade the main so I am not going to engage here. Please come back to 11-M talk page and try to organize an RFC to subustitute the one Southofwatford was organizing and you destroyed.--Igor21 16:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Randroide 17:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC) I am sorry for the (I know) hard work I am asking you, Igor21.Reply

Please, stop defaming me and I will stop to ask you for (nonexistent) sources for your defamations.

I just made what you are asking for. Please see Talk:11_March_2004_Madrid_train_bombings#RfC_.22distilled.22_section.

Good move Randroide. When doing the kind of things you normally do, it is important to know when to stop. So let's see if the rest of the editors accept your apologies and we can move forward.--Igor21 19:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

You posted this earlier today, which included the following He is not the polite person he simulates to be. He is a fanatic of conspirationist theories as he has proofed doing what he has done.

I'm posting a note about that because it clearly violates WP:AGF, and because it is not consistent with WP:NPA. Regardless of what motivates another editor, is in not appropriate to discuss that. Please limit your comments to content (as opposed to personality). If you want to discuss the behavior of another editor, do so on a user talk page, not on an article talk page (see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines.

I'm not disagreeing with your views of the other editor, by the way - I don't have any information on that, one way or another. I'm simply asking that you not post comments that can easily lead to ongoing arguments about other editors. These arguments are not constructive - they do not lead to better articles. John Broughton | Talk 14:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your quick and courteous response on my talk page. Editing Wikipedia is a learning process; please just consider the above to be advice. One more suggestion, then (and you don't need to reply) - instead of warning another editor about someone, just post a note saying something like I noticed that X has asked you to help out on this article. I hope you have the time to contribute - another person is always welcome. That way, you've shown that you're a reasonable person who trusts other editors to do the right thing. And the right thing is to let them figure out, themselves, which editors have a very serious agenda and whose edits must be looked at very carefully for bias. John Broughton | Talk 16:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from an article. Please be careful not to remove content from Wikipedia without a valid reason, which you should specify in the edit summary or on the article's talk page. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. [11] Randroide 16:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Your edit summary for your edit was Cleaning the introduction from distorted facts that lead to intentional misunderstanding so loved by conspirationist. That's really not enough of an explanation for deleting text that included at least three citations.

When you want to delete information with sources, it's considered absolutely necessary to explain on the talk page - that the sources don't meet WP:RS, or that what the article said the sources said is incorrect, or that the content (although supported) isn't relevant. (You seem to be arguing the third, which is the most difficult argument to make, because subjectivity is involved.) And it's considered extremely good form if you post the text you propose to delete on the talk page, before you delete it, and explain your reasons, so others can respond before the text is removed.

In any case, please avoid an edit war by following the one-revert rule and not deleting the content again without a lot of discussion. Thanks. John Broughton | Talk 22:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

You said Their ONLY source is a newspaper that is known for having lied, bribed witnesses and even fabricated a plot, so its credibilty between informed people -at least regarding this issue- is ZERO. If this is the case, then I strongly recommend adding some text to the article that says (placed immediately in the article following where that newspaper has been quoted), something like "However, this information, from Newspaper X, is disputed; Newspaper X has been accused of lying, bribing witnesses, and fabricating a plot." Then cite your references that say that Newspaper X is untrustworthy.

This assumes, of course, that your references meet WP:RS. Then, just as you weren't able (by the rules) to remove the sourced info you thought was false, the other editors shouldn't remove the info you've posted (again, if supported by reliable sources). That leaves both sides of the argument in the article, and the reader must decide which side to believe. That's probably the best that can be done whenever two sides strongly disagree (assuming both have sourced information). John Broughton | ♫ 16:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please consider to help us to push for an RFA that forces Randroide to accept that are two narratives (basically El Mundo and the rest) and both are legitimate but blended are imposible to read so the first article would be free of El Mundo quotes while the second can have as much El MUndo as Randroide wants. Then the reader can choose

What's the procedure for a RfA? Obviously some kind of mediation is needed. However, I disagree with the proposal about having two articles with different POV's, as I explained at the articles' talk page. And El Mundo might be wrong (and that can be said without a problem at the article, with many references that contradict its version), but it is valid as a source. Trying to fight to make it unusable as a source is, quite frankly, a lost battle in my opinion. What do you think about my proposal of having some info of the topic on the main article, and then perhaps have a subarticle focusing on El Mundo's theory, with _all_ references included to make it NPOV? Cheers! :) Raystorm 21:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

You wrote:

The authors were local islamic extremists with possible links with Al-Qaeda [12]

Thank you very much for the addition of that relevant RAND source... BUT the source says nothing about possible links with Al-Qaeda.

It is the third time [13][14] I ask you to correct that error. Please, do it.

You only have to delete the line possible links with Al-Qaeda, or find an alternative source stating that an "al-Qaida link" (note minor case "a") existed Randroide 09:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC) Reply

[16]

I suggest you the reading of:

Plase stop writing this kind of posts. Thank you. Randroide 10:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

AFAIK I never wrote that.

Please provide the (IMHO, nonexistent) diff of me writing that, or strike your claim.

Sorry for the inconvenience, Igor21, but I am fed up with being called "conspirationist".Randroide 10:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

This message is to let you know that I have posted a request for arbitration on the dispute concerning this page. [[18]] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Southofwatford (talk • contribs) 20:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC).Reply

Hi again, Igor21,

I just want to point out to you that currently, the arbitration committee has NOT decided to take the case, and it is looking less sure that they will. What is needed right now is solid evidence that RfC was attempted, not more argumentation. Furthermore, it needs to be shown why the disagreements in this case are not clearly addressed by WP:WEIGHT and WP:A. (Since these policies have undergone recent major revision, you might want to take a look at them again.)

And let me ask you this: would you be satisfied with *one* article that balanced *both* sets of sources (El Mundo vs everyone else)? Because if not, I think you need to make that clear what you are saying -- you are not just arguing that El Mundo is given undue weight, but that it's given *any* weight at all.
--Otheus 18:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

One more thing — Do you agree with everything put out by the RAND corporation? I certainly don't. --Otheus 18:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

[19]

This edit of yours, of course, has been reverted. Randroide 11:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

 

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, adding content without citing a reliable source is not consistent with our policy on attribution and verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.[20]Randroide 20:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC) Reply

 

Please stop. If you continue to blank out (or delete portions of) page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. [21] Randroide 07:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC) Reply

 

This is your last warning. The next time you delete or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. [22] Randroide 17:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC) Reply

Thanks for your comment. What about that NY Times article? It would really be helpful to see other sources contradicting it. Since you guys know these articles by heart, it would be really helpful for outside editors to see the sources for and against. It will be helpful to do this also if agreement cannot be reached and you have to go to arbitration.--Mantanmoreland 17:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Igor, one thing you may want to do is to bring the train bombings article to the attention of editors you respect who may want to pitch in. I've tried to do a bit of that. There is nothing wrong with doing so as long as it is not "canvassing" for a particular POV. I would like to see more eyeballs on the article. I'd suggest looking through articles on related subjects. My problem is that I have not been following this event more than casually, and the constant heat in the talk pages makes following the factual issues very tiresome.--Mantanmoreland 16:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

 

Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. Please refrain from doing this in the future. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you! [23] Randroide 11:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC) Reply

 

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, we remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. [25] Randroide 12:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC) Reply

 

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from an article. Please be more careful when editing articles and do not remove content from Wikipedia without a good reason, which should be specified in the edit summary. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you.[26] Randroide 13:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC) Reply

 

Please do not delete content from articles on Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. [27] Randroide 14:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC) Reply

 

Please stop. If you continue to blank out (or delete portions of) page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. [28] Randroide 12:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC) Reply

 

This is your last warning. The next time you delete or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. [29] Randroide 13:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC) Reply

New deletion [30]. Reported at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism Randroide 18:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

[31]

...you shifted my response to you to a totally, unconnected, new section.

...it has to be a good explanation. Randroide 16:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Per Durova´s indication [32], I changed the RfC wording (yours was not neutral). Randroide 09:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Could you please understand, Igor21, that this is NOT a neutral statement [33]. Please keep your arguments for your statement.

I changed it again [34], even dropping the "sourced" qualifier, just to trim the statement to neutral barebones. Any suggestion?. Randroide 07:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

  Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, adding content without citing a reliable source is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. [35] Randroide 18:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Que tal Igor? Estoy empezando a editar en la wikipedia inglesa por mi bloqueo permanente, oye! francamente mucho mejor que en la española eh, se discuten las cosas y la gente parece bastante más razonable (almenos por ahora! cruzo los dedos!). Me alegra saber que también andas por aquí. Un saludo.--Jorditxei 22:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi Igor, thanks for your note. The problem is that the Rose article is self-published on a personal website maintained by the author, and the author has no relevant academic or professional background. He also doesn't seem to have done any particular research into the case, but is just offering an opinion. For all these reasons, it would be difficult to justify his use. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

  Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

your commentary that "If there is the slightliest posibility of saying that the kid is alive and was killed by his father, Jackaboo will not hesitate. So with the help of profesional spin doctors..."^[36] was a breach of WP:CIV and WP:NPA. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have apologized in Jackaboo page for my comments while stating that I disagree with the current structure of the article, too focused on media coverage, private investigations and minority points of view instead of being focused on the bare facts as mainstream sources reflect them.--Igor21 18:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the article you posted to my talk page. I agree with the text down to the section "Proposing a Definition of Terrorism". I don't see how his definition does not include legitimate war aims (but you know that already). At that point in the article I think the analysis goes off kilter because it makes simple and arbitrary lines over what are not clear cut issues. I think this is particularly true when one starts to look at the IRA who were(/are?) a sophisticated first world organisation, who present their arguments in a way that is easy for first world people to understand. They justified nearly every attack as being against the security forces or against those working for the security forces in some capacity or other.

For example if a soldier is constructing a Sangar in a war zone he is a combatant. But what if a civilian contractor is employed to construct the sangar? What about the person who fixes the digger that the civilian or soldier uses to build the sangar? What about the person in a machine shop who make the part that is needed by the person who fixes the digger, that is used by the civilian contractor build a sangar? The trouble with this simple definition is that the difference between a combatant and a non-combatant is not clear cut given the amount of civilian support which modern combat requires.

British military bandsmen are medics in war time and defined under GCIII as non-combatants so is attacking them legitimate when they are playing music in a park? Is a policeman an civilian or a combatant? What about part-time soldiers are they only combatants when in uniform or are they still combatants when off duty? What about British soldiers off duty in a Dutch pub carpark? What about undercover SAS men dressed in civilian cloths?[38] I could go on and on but I think that is enough to make the point.

However one can see through this argument when one applies the same criteria to the IRA as to any other military organisation involved in an armed conflict. When looking at military necessity one also has to consider proportionality and distinction. For example many Irish people, including those who would normally support "the lads", considered the placing a relatively small bomb in a bin near a McDonald's in Warrington and killing children was seen as more heinous by the Irish people [39] [40] than the planting of a much larger bomb placed in Bishopsgate in London just a month later where the target was the British economy, and those killed and maimed were seen as collateral damage.

The trouble is that proportionality and distinction are a very difficult concepts to conceptualise and distil into a simple black and white formula. As is military necessity e.g. was the strategic bombing of Germany in 1945 a military necessity? Most people when asked have an opinion on that, but international humanitarian law can not give a simple yes or no answer.

One other specific point where I disagree with Boaz Ganor is in the section "Defining States’ Involvement in Terrorism" It does not even begin to address incidents like the sinking of the Rainbow Warrior. It was not an "War Crime" as New Zealand and France have never been on the opposite sides in a war. And it was not "crimes against humanity" because the number who died would not qualify it as such under any international treaty.

This sentence "As noted, defining terrorism is not merely a theoretical issue but an operative concern of the first order. Terrorism is no longer a local problem of specific countries but an issue involving a number of international aspects. Terrorist organizations may perpetrate attacks in a variety of countries; the victims of attacks can be of different nationalities;" read by a cynic after reading Lieberman's article, would appear to be a political appeal to the US who now they are under attack suddenly have fewer doubts about their stance over foreign terrorist organisations!

Further comments like this "Attitudes toward the population supporting terrorism – terrorist organizations often rely on the assistance of a sympathetic civilian population. An effective instrument in the limitation of terrorist activity is to undermine the ability of the organization to obtain support, assistance, and aid from this population. A definition of terrorism could be helpful here too by determining new rules of the game in both the local and the international sphere. Any organization contemplating the use of terrorism to attain its political aims will have to risk losing its legitimacy, even with the population that supports its aims." when seen in the context of Ireland is laughable. It is clearly assumes that terrorism in a third world context and assumes that the organisation that the government opposes will not come up with their own counter analysis eg the Long War and armalite and ballot box strategy. One can put forward a convincing argument that the British government and the IRA came to a political compromise, not something elucidated as a strategy in the 6 points made in the section "The Importance of Defining Terrorism"! But the British knew perfectly well that a hearts and minds campaign as they ran in their colonies was never going to work on the nationalist community (1,000 year old conflicts take more than a generation or two to solve).

One last point you might like to read this article (PDF) See paragraph 107

But note the confusion that the a British military document has with the terms terrorist and insurgent (see p. 105 and 106.b), However leaving that aside it is a useful insight into the conflict and as you will see the British Army is not as OTT about the IRA and terrorism as some might think they should be (see for example the wording of paragraphs 231 and 240) and finally the paragraph 314 wraps neatly into the paragraph above about "distinction". --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi Igor,

Thanks for your remarks on Talk:9/11. I believe the narrative A (the one in the current article) is NOT self coherent and that it does not fit the known facts. I have about 50 facts which are hard to reconcile with narrative A. I am not interested in developing a narrative B as an alternative to narrative A, but I want the facts to be known so that every scholar using wikipedia will have the correct information available to do whatever he/she deems useful. Do you agree?

 — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) —Preceding comment was added at 20:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hola Igor, veo que contribuyes bastante a artículos relacionados con el tema del terrorismo. He creado hace unas semanasPolitical violence in Spain since 1975 pero me esta costando bastante recopilar todos los datos necesarios. Se trata de un listado de sucesos de indóle política (sobre todo ataques terroristas) que hayan causado muertes. Te agradecería mucho que me echases una mano, en algun rato libre.

Un saludo. --Damam2008 (talk) 19:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi Igor, I wanted to include some of your suggestions to revising the LEDE of "Terrorism" but I haven't had a chance to get around to it; like I think there are some areas we agree and your thinking can make it better. Also, I think the United States and state terrorism is slanted by the horrible title alone, with huge POV problems, weight issues, propaganda and SOAPBOX issues; I'd like to pursue an AfD but I've never initiated one before.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Terrorism prevention strategies is the tentative title, but it's in my sandbox. If you have a chance to look it over and have suggestions, I'm interested. --Tomwsulcer (talk) 04:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Dear Igor, the last few days I have been adding a lot of information to this article. By now, I'm by far its main contributor. I don't necessarily like everything that is in it, but this is supposed to be a colaborative project. Let me assure you that I have no hidden agenda. My overriding goal is to make its content more precise and less contentious.

I do agree with you that there are 3 levels of definitions of terrorism. A "popular" one, used in political discourse. A "legal-diplomatic one" that changes, as you say, from one country to another, but that is also reflected in the various treaties. Unfortunately, the polical nature of law making has made difficult to agree within the UN General Assembly to a universally legally binding criminal law technical definition. There are, though, agreed definitions of certain types of criminal activities, for example, the one contained in the Bombings Convention. And there is also a variety of "academic definitions". Please note that I say a variety. As far as I know, scholar have not agreed on 1 single definition yet.

I also agree with you that the 3 levels have a place in an encyclopedia. I would not say though that they deserve the same treatment. Clearly a definition that has been agreed by 190 states, that has been ratified by 185, and that has thus been incorporated in the national legislation of most of the world (the Financing Convention, for instance), is far more notable than the definition of unknown undergraduate (and we have now one undergraduate being quoted among the scholars ...).Legal-diplomatic definitions are not subject to contention. Either they are in a treaty or they are not.

As I see this article developing, it should be restricted to your second level: the legal-diplomatic definitions. Eventually I would like to have its title changed to something likeLegal definitions of terrorism, Definition of terrorism in International Law or even Definitions of terrorism in Treaty Law. Obviously academic definitions should not be deleted from Wikipeadia, instead they should have their own page, something like Academic definitions of terrorism. The first level, "political" definitions, is part of your ongoing discussion.

Happy editing! -- Bonifacius 14:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Dear Igor, clearly you and PBS share a long history editing the articles on terrorism. I usually deal with the more tranquil waters of international law. I have read some of your exchanges and I've notice your different approaches.

I do agree with you that the current drafting of the lead gives the wrong impresion.

You know, my interest, both in WP and in real life, is international law. I cannot avoid a certain "legal" prejudice. You are right when you say that there are 3 levels and that they must be separate. To tell you the truth, the only one I really care for, and the only one I am professionally competent to contribute to, is what you call the "legal-diplomatic" level. Now, taking at that level, using the fact that the UN has yet to agree on a "comprehensive definition of terrorism" to says that there is no definition of terrorism at all is factually wrong. At that level, there is a host of legal definition of types of criminal activities described as terrorism, and there are some general definitions of terrorism adopted by regional bodies.

What are the alternatives? We could all try to improve the article and hope that something good comes out of it at the end. We can all give up, and let the article slide into a mumblejumbo of incoherent ideas. We could continue in a perpetual deadlock, or we could divide it, separating the non controversial things from the more controversial ones (and by controversial I mean the things you and PBS do not agree).

I think that PBS would agree to its division, look what he wrote me a few days back:

On final thing, also because of my legal training, I do agree that the article must be based on academic reseach, but Law is also a legitimate academic field, that deserves a place in WP. In the legal field there are some excelent studies on the question of the defintion. Perhaps you might wish to look at Ben Saul's work. There a a few articles of his on the web and also a book published by Oxford U. Press.

Happy editing! -- Bonifacius 13:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

This was not well-done. That others disagree does not mean they have not read enough, nor that they are ignorant: it means they disagree. - Sinneed 17:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

  Please do not attack other editors, as you did here: Wikipedia talk:Words to avoid. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. You have been warned about personal attacks several times, and referring to someone as emotionally involved is not acceptable. Scjessey (talk) 17:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)Reply