Jump to content

Talk:Violent non-state actor: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
PBS (talk | contribs)
Line 71: Line 71:


: Overhauled beginning of article, with more cited quotes and cited distinctions between the various types of non-state actors. I'm tempted to delete the "Diagnostic dimensions" section as OR; there are no cites, and it reads like something from the [[DSM-III]]. --[[User:Nagle|John Nagle]] ([[User talk:Nagle|talk]]) 20:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
: Overhauled beginning of article, with more cited quotes and cited distinctions between the various types of non-state actors. I'm tempted to delete the "Diagnostic dimensions" section as OR; there are no cites, and it reads like something from the [[DSM-III]]. --[[User:Nagle|John Nagle]] ([[User talk:Nagle|talk]]) 20:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

== Removed Section "Relation to Terrorism" ==

It was, to quote, "Many people think that the wearing of facepaint is related to terrorism but it infact is not it is just a way to get more people to join the "juggalo family" and listen to ICP(Insane Clown Posse)."

It shouldn't be too hard to figure out why I deleted this. [[Special:Contributions/70.78.12.203|70.78.12.203]] ([[User talk:70.78.12.203|talk]]) 22:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:53, 9 May 2011

NPOV Issues

NPOV?: "Hamas for instance might be viewed by many as freedom fighters, but their strategy is pretty much terrorist, and their means of existence closely linked with mafia-like practice." (Unsigned comment)

Also there are multiple references to EZLN from Mexico as being a violent political revolutionary group, but it is well documented that they ceased all military operations soon after their initial rebellion. They still carry guns but don't use them (some sort of existentialist revolutionary tactic, I don't know) so it doesn't seem right to classify them as a VNSA.

FARC and ELN in Colombia on the other hand are definitely VNSA, and are good examples of a blurred distinction between political motivation and criminal motivation. For right now though I'm just removing references to EZLN. spokmage 79.147.100.222 (talk) 00:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

A lot of statements are made in this article that may or may not be sourced in the single reference given, or may be extrapolations from that source. I have marked the paragraphs that do not carry a citation. Someone needs to go through the reference and cite the page to support the paragraphs. --PBS (talk) 10:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Page move

I am moving the page because the VNSA is an abbreviation is also used by other organizations and which come first when doing a Google search that excludes Wikipedia. Eg the Visiting Nurse Service and Affiliates,Virginia Nursing Students’ Association and the "Virtual Network Security Analyzer". --PBS (talk) 11:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Earliest usage

Using Google searches. The earliest references I could find for the term "Violent non-state actor" were two publications in 2002. There had been mention of Non-state actors and violence before that date but none which used the specific phrase. [1]

The first book that Google Books returns is Non-state threats and future wars by Robert J. Bunker, Routledge, 2003. p. 76

This of course is all OR, but I think it is useful to mention it here on the talk page as it shows that the phrase is a relatively new one and does not have a long antecedence as do some terms like "insurgency". --PBS (talk) 11:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Time passes and the web grows. The earliest book now returned by a Google book search is:

  • Ralph Miliband, Leo Panitch (1993). Real problems, false solutions p. 124

The earliest Google scholar return is one from 1957, one from 1970 and two from 1972. The 1957 paper is not available on the net for general access but it is cited by David R. Andersen in a paper called Foreign Policy Decision-Making and Violent Non-State Actors which was published in 2004, it is is likely that the phrase was used in this paper back then. One of the 1970 papers is accessible, so the phrase was in use in more than one journal by the early 1970s.

-- PBS (talk) 04:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Part three of the definition of terrorism

Terrorism: 1.) Intended to create fear (terror) among a broader public. 2.) A policy perpetrated for an ideological goal. 3.) Deliberate target (or disregard the safety of) non-combatants /???

Number three is better expressed through the following statement

3.) The deliberate creation of collaterol damage for reasons of propaganda.

190.38.99.16 (talk) 14:04, 25 December 2009 (UTC) Signed:(Fractalhints (talk) 21:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Part three of the definition of terrorism

The inexactness of the perpetuators (the unknown being a cause for fear), five points:

1.) ´Unidentified´ ´specific entities´ located in ´unspecified´ ´exact locations´.
2.) Are alleged to belong to a larger ´untouchable´ ´not clearly identified´ specific group with ´unidentified´ clearly demarked superior economic, military, intelligence and/or technological capacity above standard civilian level.
3.) That create fear (terror) among a broader public.
4.) Perpetuate their actions through a policy designed for an ideological goal.
5.) Deliberately create collaterol damage for reasons of propaganda.

Some psychology and sociology due the causes for fear and terror would be appreciated if those terms are used in the definition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.38.99.16 (talk) 15:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC) Signed:(Fractalhints (talk) 21:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Definition of violent

Violence is forcefull compliance (ie: behavior modification techniques through physical and non-physical means) and acceptance for and of the purposes of the perpetrators.

Even though superposition of understandable language on top of other acoustical sounds is physically non-violent, psychologically, it is a violent intrusion by entities that attempt to impose their ´sayso´ onto other entities (heckling is a violent form of intrusion, so is sound blasting someones residence).

Bullying, paternal alienation, several other forms defined in the DSM IV (psychiatry), military training, are all forms that have one item in common, they are used by ´violent´ state and non-state actors to mold through force entities into compliance with a preset series of behavior norms of the perpetuators own design (in or out of function) (training).
190.38.99.16 (talk) 20:16, 25 December 2009 (UTC) Signed:(Fractalhints (talk) 21:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Fixed some links, overhaul

Some of the links were dead, or semi-dead. Naval Postgraduate School links divert to the main NPS web page. I've added archive.org links where necessary, and cut out side trips through blogs that led to the real paper cited. All links now go someplace useful. --John Nagle (talk) 19:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overhauled beginning of article, with more cited quotes and cited distinctions between the various types of non-state actors. I'm tempted to delete the "Diagnostic dimensions" section as OR; there are no cites, and it reads like something from the DSM-III. --John Nagle (talk) 20:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Section "Relation to Terrorism"

It was, to quote, "Many people think that the wearing of facepaint is related to terrorism but it infact is not it is just a way to get more people to join the "juggalo family" and listen to ICP(Insane Clown Posse)."

It shouldn't be too hard to figure out why I deleted this. 70.78.12.203 (talk) 22:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]