Talk:Terror bombing/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Shock and awe

From my talk page:

1. Hi, most of the reverts you made were fine; I hadn't spotted a couple of inline wikilinks, and I can live with the (ugly) notes section, but I do think a See also to Shock and awe would be useful for the reader, as terror bombing falls under Shock_and_awe#Historical_applications. A link from Shock and awe back to Terror bombing would also make sense, but you reverted that too. I recognise that my timing is bad due to the AN/I dispute (which made me look at the article) so you're on alert for POV edits, but I was just trying to link together some related articles. Fences and windows (talk) 00:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

What is you justification for assuming that a WWII propaganda term is in any way linked to Shock and awe#Historical applications? Do Ullman and Wade make the connection? --PBS (talk) 06:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:See also: "whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense... These may be useful for readers looking to read as much about a topic as possible, including subjects only peripherally related to the one in question". See also links don't need to be directly connected, but I think the connection between two terms that refer to overwhelming aerial bombing is pretty clear.

And this connection isn't original research; journalists and academics have made the connection between WWII bombing and "shock and awe", so it isn't necessary for Ullman and Wade to do so. See for instance [1][2][3][4].

For explicit connections between the terms, see these searches:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?um=1&q=%22terror+bombing%22+%22shock+and+awe%22&btnG=Search+Books

http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?um=1&q=%22terror%20bombing%22%20%22shock%20and%20awe%22&sa=N&hl=en&tab=ps

http://news.google.co.uk/archivesearch?um=1&ned=uk&hl=en&q=%22terror+bombing%22+%22shock+and+awe%22&cf=all

One example: "Other state practices which fall under the definition of terrorism include the ‘terror bombing’ of civilian areas during wartime to intimidate the population into submission or terrify them into putting pressure on their leaders, particularly when the city is chosen randomly (as a result of favourable weather conditions on the day, for example) and the bombing itself brings no discernible strategic advantage. Under this understanding, certain doctrines of strategic bombing, such as ‘shock and awe’, as well as certain contemporary practices such as the widespread targeting of civilian areas in Israel’s 2006 bombing of South Lebanon and NATO’s bombing of civilian targets in the 1999 Kosovo campaign, clearly fall within the definition of terrorism. These are all cases of frightening one group of people in order to produce a political change in another, which is the essence of the terrorism tactic." [5]. The author is a reader/lecturer in terrorism studies.[6]. Simon Jenkins of the Times is another to explictly make the connection several times. Neither are historical revisionists.

As well, "Shock and Awe" is also a propaganda term, so linking together two propaganda terms would make sense. Fences and windows (talk) 18:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The sources you mention is are classic examples of how the term (like the use of terrorism) presents a bias that the author wishes to push as they carry strong negative connotations, in the way that the term demoralise does not. It is a rhetorical trick, because it frames the boundaries of the debate before it starts.

I am afraid I do not see the the connection you are trying to make any more than I would if you wanted to link Blitzkrieg to terrorism and terrorism to Blitzkrieg. --PBS (talk) 20:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

You're interpreting these sources according to your own point of view; whether they're classic examples of anything is irrelevant. You don't think that shock and awe and terror bombing should be linked, so you're disregarding sources that link the terms. The phrase may have originated as Nazi war propaganda, but subsequent non-Nazi sympathising authors have connected the terms. Remember that you don't own the article. I can understand your distate, as LaRouche has endorsed the connection:[7], but I'd never say that the terms should be linked if only such sources did so. I've provided reliable sources that explicitly connect the two; is your objection only that you don't like it? Linking the terms does not endorse an interpretation that the terms are equivalent, only that they are related and readers might find the link useful. I'm not discussing Blitzkrieg and terrorism, see WP:OTHER. Fences and windows (talk) 00:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Lots of people make claims all the time about controversial issues. For example there are sources that claim that Nelson Mandela was a terrorist,and that Robert Mugabe is a tyrant. Does that mean that if the accusation is not made in the text of the article (in which case there is no need for it in the see also section) that links should be placed in the "see also" section to terrorist and tyrant? --PBS (talk) 11:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Focus of the page, and possible merging

I know I may be going over old ground, but... why does the page only really mention Allied bombing/Dresden as "terror bombing"? I know it was just "gutted", but plenty of sources refer to Guernica, for example, as "terror bombing". Considering that the term is subjective and full coverage of all the aerial bombings ever considered to be "terror bombing" by reliable sources would replicate much of Aerial bombing of cities, why not merge this article into that article? Fences and windows (talk) 19:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I see the reduction of the article was because it was basically a POV fork of Aerial bombing of cities. A merger would definitely stop it bloating again. Fences and windows (talk) 19:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

There term itself is encyclopaedic, for example did you realize that the first use of the term in English was in 1943? So basically it is a Nazi propaganda invention. The reason I mentioned Dresden is not because it was a terror bombing (the two POVs have very long entries in the bombing of Dresden article), but because it was coupled to the first accusation in the English language press that the Western Allies were using terror bombing tactics, and the follow up use in the British Parliament and Government. The fact that the Chiefs of Staff would not accept Churchill's first memo shows that the British high command were well aware of how powerful and dangerous the term was (targeting non-combatants as oppose to civilian infrastructure could even in 1945 have be see as a war crime).

This is very different from listing every raid in every war that someone has called a terror bombing. --PBS (talk) 19:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

What does "There term itself is encyclopaedic" mean? Is your contention that 'terror bombing' can only refer to attacks that the Nazi propagandists called 'terror bombing'? Is there an academic consensus in favor of your position on what 'terror bombing' means? If not we likely need an article that reflects a wider application of the term.Haberstr (talk) 20:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I did not say "'terror bombing' can only refer to attacks that the Nazi propagandists called 'terror bombing'" We have an article called football and another about football (word) and another about football (ball) none of them are about the game football. In the case of 'terror bombing' all most any raid where humans are underneath an attack can be said to terrorise the recipients, what is of interest, given that it is a propaganda term, is who makes such a claim, and why. For example some have accused France of committing genocide in Algeria during the Algerian War of Independence. In response to the action of the French parliament, making it an offense to deny the existence of the Armenian Genocide, the Grand National Assembly of Turkey drafted a bill in October 2006 to make it illegal to deny that the French committed genocide in Algeria. One can stack up view on whether or not the French did commit genocide, or one can instead look at the motives of why someone says or denies such a claim. Given that the raids are covered in several other less emotionally titled articles, in this article I think it better to write about the use of the term 'terror bombing' rather than the details of the raids and campaigns described as terror bombing. --PBS (talk) 08:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

You are not proposing to write an encyclopedia article. On the 'Armenian Genocide' the views of Turks, French, and Armenians need to be included, but taking primacy should be academic consensus or if there isn't one a diversity of dominant views in academia. The origin of the term 'terror bombing' is of relatively minor importance, in my opinion; it was after all just the attachment of 'terror' to 'bombing' by the other side in a war, and neither innovative nor unexpected. But whatever the source the word and concept caught on. Most people who come to an encyclopedia article on 'terror bombing' want to get some sense of what it is, what it may be, and what it probably is not. We can be helpful to such readers by noting several of the events widely considered archetypal examples of terror bombing. I think Guernica is obviously one of those examples, especially because it literally terrorized people, but let's just go to the historians and find out what they think.Haberstr (talk) 17:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Add this pre-WWII and WWII material

From the history of the talk page:

22:37, 16 July 2009 Haberstr (→Add this pre-WWII and WWII material: new section)

Extended content

Casualties of a mass panic during a Japanese air raid in Chongqing Some scholars consider the deliberate bombardment of civilian populations a form of state terror, and, during the military conflicts leading up to World War II and the war itself, terror bombing of enemy civilian populations in order to break morale was first put into action. Beginning early in the 1930s and with greatest intensity between 1938 and 1943, the Japanese used incendiary bombs against Chinese cities such as Shanghai, Wuhan and Chonging. Lord Cranborne, the British Under-Secretary of State For Foreign Affairs, commented on a 1937 bombing: "The military objective, where it exists, seems to take a completely second place. The main object seems to be to inspire terror by the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians..." In Europe in 1937, the bombardment of Guernica (April 26, 1937), carried out by Nazi Germany’s Luftwaffe, caused widespread destruction and civilian deaths in the Basque town. According to the BBC, the goal of General Francisco Franco, commander of the nationalist forces during the Spanish Civil War, was "to terrorize the people in the Basque region. . ." In May 1940, during World War II itself, the Luftwaffe bombed Rotterdam in an effort to force Dutch capitulation, and the threat to bomb Utrecht in the same fashion forced Netherlands’ surrender. In a bombing campaign against Britain called "the Blitz" (September, 1940, to May, 1941), Germany carried out intensive bombardment of British cities such as London and war industry centers such as Coventry. Britain, perhaps in response, adopted a bombing policy against German cities euphemistically called area bombardment whose objective was in part to ‘de-house’ and demoralize the German civilian population. The Dresden bombing (February 13-15, 1945) was an instance of area bombardment that left the city in ruins and claimed between 25,000 and 40,000 lives. Late in the war, in its air attacks on Japan, U.S. forces used a mix of incendiaries and high explosives to burn large sections of Japanese cities to the ground. A military aide to General Douglas MacArthur called an incendiary attack on Tokyo "one of the most ruthless and barbaric killings of non-combatants in all history."

--—Preceding unsigned comment added by Haberstr (talk • contribs) 22:37, 16 July 2009

I am against adding this material to this article. Terror bombing is phrase born out of propaganda, and as such any description of bombing as terror bombing is rhetoric. There are more neutral phrases which can be used and we have articles such as strategic bombing into which information can be placed an presented with a neutral point of view. Like terrorism the term "terror bombing" is a label that carry an implicit viewpoint. It is a pejorative label, frequently applied to those whose opposed the bombings so described. --PBS (talk) 14:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

So you suggest using the euphemism 'strategic bombing', which was also born out of propaganda? The problem with your approach is simple: there exists a phrase 'terror bombing', which means bombing civilians in order to terrorize or otherwise damage enemy civilian morale. That the phrase is controversial is irrelevant from including it here. Of course 'strategic bombing' is less controversial, that's the point of euphemisms, isn't it? Finally, 'terror bombing' as you can see is in fact a wikipedia entry. In that context, of course Guernica needs to be included. And does anyone propose that Guernica was strategic bombing? So that's my final point, 'strategic bombing' generally refers to massive air campaigns destroying housing and industry directed at Japan and Germany, and not to the bombardment and strafing that took place at Guernica. Terror bombing has a more wide-ranging (and much less clear) definition.Haberstr (talk) 19:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

A good example of this is Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, 5th Marquess of Salisbury (Lord Cranborne) who at the time (1937) he made his statement "The military objective, where it exists, seems to take a completely second place. The main object seems to be to inspire terror by the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians..." quoted above was in the British Government (Paymaster-General), yet he remained in a government which issued an area bombing directive that in 1942 that made it clear "...that the primary objective of your operations should be focused on the morale of the enemy civil population and in particular the industrial workers". A good example of the use of "terror bombing" as a propaganda instrument. --PBS (talk) 14:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, 'strategic bombing' is a propaganda term too, a euphemism for what the Germans were calling terror bombing. And, yes, 'terror' and 'terrorist' and 'terrorism' are nearly always propaganda labels, and we do need to talk about that in any of the many Wikipedia entries that contain those labels. The solution is not to eliminate those often widely read (and easy to locate because the title used the most common term) sections, replacing them with euphemistically named entries.Haberstr (talk) 19:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe that using quotations of primary sources that label particular events as "terror bombing" is inappropriate, they are too close to the event itself. If there are respectable secondary sources that draw the conclusion, it is acceptable to include them. While the phrase "Terror bombing" itself can be charged, so can "Terrorism", yet it would be absurd not to have an article on that. As long as the approach is correct, it may be possible to have a non POV article on terror bombing - although it may be difficult to maintain it against POV editors. The main challenge for this would be to find respectable references - unfortunately the references' credibility will constantly be attacked; look at the articles history before the rewrite. In the end, it may be better to describe what terror bombing is without giving specific examples, as they may inevitably lead to POV warring Hohum (talk) 19:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic but not sure I completely agree. The text above mentions some of the better known participants in and commentators on, and some of the best known immediate journalistic reactions to, incidents of alleged terror bombing. But I agree that greatest weight needs to be given to NPOV/academic consensus on these matters, and where there isn't NPOV/academic consensus that lack of consensus should be given great prominence.Haberstr (talk) 20:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

"Strategic bombing" and "tactical bombing" are not euphemisms. The way the British used "area bombing" in the Second Word War probably was, but the phrase certainly has an antecedence that goes back to the First World War and originally referred to artillery bombardment but by the end of that war was also in use for aircraft bombardment. As it happens I was looking to do the same thing to the Area bombardment article, which is how I know this factoid, because by an large the article Aerial bombing of cities covers the same ground (pun intended)--PBS (talk) 21:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

terror bombing circa May 2009 needs to be restored

Look here: [8]. That article, 57K bytes, is vastly superior to the present 9K bytes article: it considers international law and morality, covers a range of places, provides a pretty good history, and so on. It seems one editor has decided the term 'terror bombing' is an evil phrase invented by the Nazis, and has therefore taken a meat cleaver to what was once a fine article, censoring into darkness the contributions of hundreds if not thousands of edits.Haberstr (talk) 20:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

See Talk:Area_bombardment#Rewrite and Talk:Terror bombing/Archive 1#Rewrite and Talk:Terror bombing/Archive 1#Rewritten

There are several articles which cover strategic bombing there is no need to replicate the information here (see Wikipedia:Content forking) --PBS (talk) 21:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Strategic bombing is, if you believe it qualifies as a form of terror, a subcategory of terror bombing. (Alleged) terror bombing takes more forms than the strategic bombing form. So you are excluding important factual information from the encyclopedia when the only access to terror bombing is in the strategic bombing article. Guernica, for example, is widely considered an example of terror bombing but was not strategic bombing. How do you work out these contradictions? I don't have a problem having some duplication in the 'terror' and 'strategic' bombing articles, but I have a big problem (in pursuit of non-duplication) with excluding the main facts of terror bombing from this terror bombing article.Haberstr (talk) 22:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Second paragraph "The aerial attacks described ..." --PBS (talk) 22:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

So, this: "The aerial attacks described as terror bombing are often long range strategic bombing raids, although attacks against tactical targets which result in the deaths of civilians may also be described as such, or if the attacks involve fighters strafing they may be labeled 'terror attacks.'" This means you don't consider Guernica an incident of terror bombing, but you would consider it a 'terror attack'? I continue not to understand why the majority of the article, the final two large paragraphs, is about WWII and attacks on Germany. That indicates some sort of unconventional POV on what 'terror bombing' means, and probably is the key to what is wrong with the revision.Haberstr (talk) 22:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe the older version of the article is far worse than the current one. Hardly any of the examples are specifically referenced as terror attacks, and have been included by various editors using their own conclusions. Hohum (talk) 22:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I would start by re-including the material I've posted on this talk page. Surely Guernica and the Japanese attacks on Chinese civilians in the 1930s are widely viewed as 'terror bombing', if there is such a thing as terror bombing at all. But neither would be considered 'strategic bombing'.Haberstr (talk) 23:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

What something is "widely viewed" as is meaningless, you need the authoritative reference of expert views. - Unless you mean widely viewed by historians, in which case you have the references ;-) Hohum (talk) 23:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

There are no contemporary English language sources which call Guernica terror bombing as the phrase did not enter English until 1941! It is a propaganda term and so if it is used to describe an attack then the author is presenting a specific POV. Any attack were anyone on the receiving end is frighted (and anyone who is in a vulnerable position and is not frightened would be the exception to the rule) can be described as a terror attack, not matter what the motives for the attack were. In WWII the British claimed to be area bombing cities while the Americas attempted to precision bomb, but that did no stop the Germans claiming that the Americas were terror bombing. If a bombing mission fails to a city fails, and the planes turn for home jettisoning their bombs over the sea, is that a terror bombing raid or do the bombs have to fall on someone before it becomes one? Much better to have an article on the use of the phrase than yet another article on the same set of bombing raids that exist in several other articles.--PBS (talk) 08:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

What the case was in in 1937 is not relevant! What matters is that there either are academic historians describing those events as an early instance of terror bombing or not. By the way, 'precision bombing' was not precise at all in WWII, and that is why it can rightly be considered a euphemism, i.e., a propaganda term. Like 'area bombing' and 'terror bombing'. But those are among the words we are charged with discussing and describing as best we can in this encyclopedia.Haberstr (talk) 17:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, we probably want the opinions of respectable historians more than sources that are contemporary to the event. What everyone claimed at the time isn't what we are after - we need what historians have described as terror bombings in published works. Hohum (talk) 14:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

See my last comment in the section #Focus of the page, and possible merging that starts "I did not say..."(08:57, 21 July 2009) --PBS (talk) 15:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm getting what you guys are getting at

I think this article needs to be a little longer, and especially Guernica and perhaps a couple other examples included/restored. But I agree that the 57K article would be more appropriate for an entry with a less intrinsically POV title. I'm considering making up a new one entitled, perhaps, 'military attacks on civilian-populated areas' or 'military attacks on civilian-populated areas' or some such, where the international law and the various ambiguously 'terrorist or non-terrorist' attacks and 'collateral damage' could be surveyed. This article on 'terror bombing' could stay fairly small then. My main concern is that there is no rationally titled and comprehensive Wikipedia entry on civilian victimization that occurs as a result of wartime military bombing. (I don't consider 'aerial bombing of cities' to be well-titled).Haberstr (talk) 17:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Have you read Aerial bombardment and international law and also military necessity? The problem such an article would run into is the POV wars over such things as the fact that the British targeted buildings not civilians in WWII and insistence that things like Shock and awe was an attack on civilians, not to mention the never ending POV wars over the use of the Israeli air force. When you say military bombing do you include in that bombardment by artillery? For example the Soviets put a greater tonnage of ordinance onto Berlin than the Western Allies did, most of the Soviet tonnage was delivered by artillery. --PBS (talk) 18:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

POV wars are inevitable on this topic. Are we to not write about topics because they might be controversial? Why should Israeli air attacks on civilian populations or Shock and awe not be mentioned within an article discussing air attacks on civilians? Fences&Windows 18:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I think "on civilian-populated areas" avoids the 'intent' issue. I think, for my purposes, 'military attacks on civilian-populated areas' is best, because you could point out the historical continuity from ancient times, the continuity of the moral issues, and so on. The innovation of aircraft seems a minor point. But I could be wrong, and perhaps 'aerial attacks on civilian-populated areas' restricts the scope appropriately, and might just be easier to do in the short run. Probably two articles would be ideal, actually.Haberstr (talk) 19:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Would "Aerial bombing of civilian populations" be a better title for "Aerial bombing of cities"?

PBS is asserting "ownership" over this article by policing all additions. If academics and commentators have called other attacks "terror bombing", even decades after they happened, it can't be ignored. PBS's decision that only the Nazi propaganda use is permissible is unilateral; I've seen no other editor support this. PBS also blocked a See also link to Shock and awe, despite academics and commentators drawing the association between these two propaganda terms. Fences&Windows 18:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree POV-warring is inevitable on this and similar topics. I think 'aerial bombing of civilian-populated areas' is ideal, except that it's wordy. I think the title "aerial bombing of civilians' could be construed (in the inevitable POV wars) to imply that the intent of such bombing was 'of civilians'. 'Aerial bombing of civilian-populated areas' avoids the 'intent' trap. Haberstr (talk) 19:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

"'aerial bombing of civilian-populated areas'" what does that mean as most parts of the planet have a civilian population? What would be more unusual is "aerial bombing of non-populated areas" --PBS (talk) 23:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Military bases are not typically considered 'civilian-populated', though civilians do work on military bases. Farmland is not considered 'civilian-populated', though a farm house is. I think we need to employ good faith and common sense when looking at terminology. Or, do you think "aerial bombing of civilians" is a better choice? Maybe it is.Haberstr (talk) 16:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not trying to be flippant but that is exactly the problem that occurs all the time. I am afraid that unless very careful though is given to such descriptive article names they become POV battle fields. Take for example a simple name like list of massacres, an obvious name one would think for a list, but it turned out to be a POV nightmare which in the end was renamed List of events named massacres. --PBS (talk) 17:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Article Problems

At present is article is quite poor it needs to be expand as it mainly focuses on a single press conference in WW2, it needs more scholarly analysis, and general expansion outside of world war 2, both before and after, a section on things like the balance of terror during ww2 (gas bombs on civilians), Vietnam, Spanish civil war, facist italy, even shock and awe. General more coverage of bombing as a psychological weapon in war. The article also needs alot more citations throughout and needs its weight and POV issues sorted. Sherzo (talk) 06:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

What POV? --PBS (talk) 10:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The very right wing POV that it is entirely a nazi view of terror bombing, the one you had reverted it to, making no reference to anything but the raid on dresden. Sherzo (talk) 17:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

It is not a right wing POV to state that the term has its origins in German propaganda (quite the opposite)!

The only reason why Dresden is mentioned in passing because it was the reporting of that incident Howard Cowan, an Associated Press war correspondent, that introduced the phrase into general use in the English language press. --PBS (talk) 18:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

It supports the nazi position with no balance for events. With no context as to the attack and what occured, also its first hand evidence, There must be scholarly sources on the topic, which can help craft a better article. Sherzo (talk) 20:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd be more sympathetic to including the recently contested passages if they had some references that supported it. I find it doubly ironic that the passages being repeatedly put back include fact tags, and that one of the editors that keeps re-introducing it is criticising someone else for lack of scholarly sources.

On the flipside; I don't think what the German propaganda minister has to say about attacks is particularly relevant, and should only be included if it's specifically mentioned to be an example of the usage of the term "terror attack/bombing". It's shouldn't be the lead of a paragraph which can easily be misinterpreted as framing what follows. Hohum (talk) 00:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I felt the editor should have the opportunity to cite they work without it just being removed that is why we use fact and sources tags to highlight these issues. As the article stands it effectively is stating that terror bombing is a tactic solely limited to world war 2. These are to my mind areas that need to be expanded, what terror bombing is, what the goal is and what tactic entails in far more detail than at present. giving the emphasis on dresden the raid itself should be discussion to give proper context as to why it is considered terror bombing. more general examples like Guernica should be included. Sherzo (talk) 11:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Images

The Blitz images are better choice than an abstract painting, particularly when the event that painting is connecting to isn't even mentioned in the article. Sherzo (talk) 06:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

You revert in a section on the Blitz and then complain about the image! If the Blitz section is not there then there is no point in including images of the Blitz. Have your read the archives? This is not an article about any particular raid which someone somewhere has called a terror bombing, we have lots of articles with more neutral names about those raids. This is an article about how the phrase developed. If you would like to add a paragraph on the painting and why it is considered to be a picture about the civilian suffering under aerial attack, then I think that would be a contribution to he article. But that is different from simply list Guernica as a terror bombing raid. --PBS (talk) 10:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

without that context the painting has no point to the article whereas the blitz images have a corresponding paragraph providing context.Sherzo (talk) 17:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The Blitz image have no context either unless you are referring to the paragraph you keep re-introducing into the text and presents a specific POV without even including proper citations. Why do you think that this paragraph about the Blitz, should be in the article? Or do you think that this article should be a rehash of Strategic bombing and Strategic bombing in World War II with the addition of the phrase "Terror bombing" to describe the same raids? --PBS (talk) 18:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• Whatever the arguments between the historical photos, the Guernica image is a clear violation of our non-free image policies, and so I have removed it. I have replaced the one free image, though I have no issue with anyone removing it if it appears irrelevant to the text. Black Kite 19:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

London Blitz

The London Blitz is not a prime example of terror bombing. The motives for it are far more complex that that. Who says it is a prime example? Quote please from the two sources given to support it.

"The Blitz on British cities in WW2 is often cited as prime example of terror bombing," quotes from the sources that support the statement that it is a prime example.

"its primary purpose was to demoralize the British people into surrendering." What is the source for this statement?

"This is best exemplified by the 29 December raid on London in 1940, the main target of which was St Paul's Cathedral," the source available on line do not say that it was the primary target and even it it was joining it like this to the previous sentence is WP:SYNTH as that does not exemplify terror bombing.

"the night was specifically chosen so that the Thames would be at its lowest and thus provide the least amount of water to the firefighting operation" Nothing to do with terror bombing. If terror bombing is the bombing of civilians the ability to fight fires is not relevant.

"The use of unmanned Terror weapons by Germany such as the V1 and V2 and the Baedeker Blitz had a similar aim in the later stages of the war." Who says that the motive was terror and not vengeance/retaliation?

This whole paragraph is about attacks on London that can be described a terror attacks as can attacks on almost any target. In which case we have at least 4 other articles which cover raids like these. Why should raids on London be in this article? --PBS (talk) 07:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The same could be said about synth regarding the paragraph starting with Goebbels. Would removing the words "prime" and "primary" make the Blitz passages acceptable? - that is the basis of your objection. I reject your argumentation about any attacks being able to be described as terror attacks - because there are sources included that support the Blitz being called that, while not every other attack has supporting sources. I doubt there will be trouble finding sources to support V weapons as being terror weapons.

Why is saying that attacking during low water levels, hoping to make the destruction worse, and the fires uncontrollable, not relevant? It clearly makes the attack more damaging.

Why should raids on Germany be in the article? Because the eminently trustworthy Goebbels and other Primary sources said they were terror attacks? Yet you don't want attacks which are described as such by reliable secondary sources?

nb. I beleive many allied raids (and other attacks beyond WWII) were essentially terror attacks, but that needs proper references. Hohum (talk) 16:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

PBS, I don't think that your latest revert of the addition of the Blitz passages was reasonable. You mentioned your disagreement about it here, but before responding to my answer, or waiting for others, you have simply deleted it again. Hohum (talk) 20:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

<--If the London Blitz it included then just about any attack can be described as a terror attack (as authority someone somewhere has inevitably stated that it was). The phrase is inherently biased and as such is exactly the same as terrorist. Unlike the various lists of terrorist incidents which tend not to be linked in any other way, we have many articles on aerial attacks. We do not need another one which is inevitably biased. For example there was an edit war over the Blitz just a few weeks ago because to sate that they are terror raids without explaining the context is biased. That is what prompted me to rewrite the article when I did, (although I had been proposing to do so for some time).

"The same could be said about synth regarding the paragraph starting with Goebbels" Which part of the paragraph is synth?

If "primary" is removed from the Blitz what makes those attacks worth including in this article By that I mean what is it about those campaigns that makes them illustrative of an unique and specific aspect of "terror bombing"?

Just because an attack is more damaging does not mean that it is more terrifying, for example look at the RAF nuisance raids.

Unless there is a specific sources stating that the raids were timed to maximize the damage as maximum damage is more terrifying then it should not be included.

Unless there is a specific mention that "its primary purpose was to demoralize the British people into surrendering" means "its primary purpose was to terrorise the British people into surrendering" it should not be included as the two meanings are different. For example the RAF nuisance raids were designed to keep people awake at night (or at least uncomfortably sleeping) in bunkers, because it is known that lack of sleep is demoralising.

I am removing the text again until sources are provided that cover the wording of the paragraph (WP:PROVIT). After that if it is included again we can discuss what the merits of such an addition to the article is. --PBS (talk) 10:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Nobody is adding every single attack that could be classified as terror bombing, they are adding one, with references - you might not like the references, but you aren't the final arbiter, consensus is, which you aren't considering before making multiple unilateral reverts. You admit you can't read one of the citations, yet you don't assume good faith.

Apparently the only attack and commentary we should have is the bombing of Germany, with an introductory framing commentary by Goebbels! If you can't see introducing the paragraph that way as synthesis, you aren't thinking too hard. Also the primary reason RAF bombing was at night was because too many aircraft were shot down during the day - other reasoning is rationalisation.

Obviously including every single attack (which hasn't even been suggested or attempted) is too much, but a variety of attacks in a variety of theatres is not. Hohum (talk) 15:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

What about the list as it was when you made this edit in May? Was the list then just as expansive for this article as it is in about half a dozen others? --PBS (talk) 16:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

<--Reversion without addressing the issues above is a breach of WP:PROVEIT. If the sources in the above address the issues I have been raising in this section, then please quote from those sources here on the talk page to prove it. --PBS (talk) 17:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I would rather start from scratch. I don't see the relevance of it being my edit - which was about dead links, grammar or syntax.

I'm also really uninterested in wikilawyering. Reverting sourced additions without giving opportunity for revising them, repeatedly, is verging on tendentious editing, and edit warring - it only creates bad feeling, lack of good faith, and escalation. Should someone delete the Goebbels paragraph on the grounds that it's synthesis, misleading, misuse of Primary references, and then insist that you prove that it isn't, then reject your argument and sources without giving the opportunity to discuss and correct them? Of course not. I didn't add the Blitz passages, or have all of the references, but we can give the editor that introduced them the opportunity to provide quotes, or alter the passages to conform to the references we can see. Hohum (talk) 17:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

How much time is enough time do you think? "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material."(WP:PROVIT). --PBS (talk) 11:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't contest who the burden lies with. While we are waiting, explain why a paragraph starting with Goebbels propaganda (a primary source) is notable, relevant, unbiased, and doesn't frame the rest of the section by its inclusion? Also justify why it should be the only example, or provide others to balance it. If you can't, delete it all.

Sound familar? Probably not, because I haven't just deleted it all without giving you multiple opportunities to correct it. Hohum (talk) 13:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The citation is not to a primary source but to a secondary source. As the article is about and the development of the phrase "terror bombing, it is not unreasonable to cite the use of the phrase in both German and English. I do not think that the use of the phrase to describe the Blitz by later authors is any more significant than the description of an other campaign where authors use the emotive description "terror bombing" if you think it true that "The Blitz on British cities in WW2 is often cited as prime example of terror bombing," then you need sources that state it is a "prime example of terror bombing" (who says it is)? Further you need another source that says "[Terror boming] is best exemplified by the 29 December raid on London in 1940" You also need a source that states that the level of the river was chosen to maximise the terror and not the just the damage. Further who says that "primary purpose [of the V1 and V2 and the Baedeker Blitz was] to demoralize the British people into surrendering" The current source is not a reliable one and it does not support that statement. All in all unless the structure of the Blitz paragraph is improved so that it highlights unique aspects of the use of the phrase "terror bombing" I will remove it and wait for you to provide sources that support the text in the paragraph. --PBS (talk) 17:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

You completely ignored the thrust of what I said and diverted to the Blitz, instead of what I said about Goebbels onwards. "justify why it should be the only example, or provide others to balance it. If you can't, delete it." If you want to improve the article, you should be looking for other examples yourself. If you aren't, it's pretty clear you are pushing your own POV, at the same time as putting up meaningless obstacles for any other examples. Hohum (talk) 23:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

"justify why it should be the only example, or provide others to balance it. If you can't, delete it." I don't understand what you mean by this statement. How can claiming that the Blitz is a primary example, when no source has been produced that says that, be a balance to anything the Nazis may or may not have claimed? What is the balance that is trying to be struck? That the Nazis were hypocritical is shown in the Hessel (2006), p. 107 note. --PBS (talk) 23:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The sources given clearly state that the Blitz was an instance of terror bombing. You can remove the "primary" part if you'd like, but not the whole section.radek (talk) 19:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Here's one for both London and Coventry [9]radek (talk) 19:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

As Harris put it "The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everyone else, and nobody was going to bomb them. At Rotterdam, London, Warsaw, and half a hundred other places, they put their rather naive theory into operation." If London is not a "prime example of terror bombing", given that may attacks are called terror bombing, what makes the the London bombings notable as far as the use of the expression terror bombing is concerned? Why include them and not every attack that has ever been called a terror bombing raid? The point is that we have other a articles with less biased names, like Strategic bombing which goes into detail over bombing without emphasising the use of a propaganda term, so why do you wish to duplicate information in this article that already appears in other articles? --PBS (talk) 00:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what Harris said has anything to do with the article. If you'd like to add other instances of terror bombing - as long as it's cited by reliable sources - then I think that would be fine. But the fact is that the London Blitz and the Coventry bombing are reffed to as "terror bombing" by reliable sources. So unless you're objecting to this article's raison d'être (in which case you should nominate it for deletion) this obviously belongs in the article.radek (talk) 00:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

there is no point having yet another article on strategic bombing (as such all it becomes is a POV fork of strategic bombing) which is what the article was until pruned it earlier this year. That subject is covered in several other articles. There is a point to having a history about the development and use of the phrase terror bombing.

The for example the link you gave above is to a book written in 2005 by Douglas J. Davies (0754637735 Encyclopedia of cremation. Ed. by Douglas J. Davies. Ashgate Publishing Co. 2005) and adding a paragraph on the usage of the term since 1945 would be informative and this might perhaps be an example of 21st century usage (although I think there are better examples). But recreating this just another article listing strategic and tactical bombing raids is not useful. --PBS (talk) 10:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Readers coming to an article called "Terror bombing" in an encyclopaedia are going to expect an explanation of what terror bombing is, with relevant examples of what it's been applied to, as well as the development and use of the phrase. I see no reason why all of this content can't coexist in the same article. The previously culled article was poor because of the lack of decent referencing and constant POV warring.

I don't see any editor suggesting that this article should be a list of bombing raids.

Having said that, the current phrasing of the Blitz section is very pointy - "This is best exemplified by" should be "According to X, an early example...."

How about we try and work towards an acceptable structure? I don't think anyone is suggesting the article should be a list of pointy examples, but nor should it be what it is now, an unfocussed mess.

What elements should be in the article? My suggestions are: Earliest contemporaneous uses of the phrase (or translated equivalent). Examples of when it became a popular phrase. A referenced explanation of how it is an emotive, inexact, propaganda term, but also one that even serious historians use. Examples of how it has been applied to events before it's first contemporaneous usage. I would also seriously recommend that all examples attributing the term to an event are phrased a step away from giving the impression that wikipedia itself is making the judgement. i.e

X describes the attack on Y as "widely considered as a terror bombing".^[1]

not

The attack on Y was a clear example of terror bombing.^[1]

Hohum (talk) 17:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

<-- There is a clear definition of what terror bombing is in the first paragraph. The Blitz does nothing to help explain what terror bombing is, instead it attempts to the use the term to describe what the some think Blitz was. However as the British were decidedly not terrorised it is a bad description. --PBS (talk) 23:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

By your reasoning; if the Blitz didn't terrorize the British, then a minor, early bombing of Berlin is also a bad example because it didn;t terrorize Germany. However, I think they are both relevant, early examples, and I simply can't understand your desire to cling to one, and reject ALL OTHERS. It's verging on obsession. Hohum (talk) 00:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The early bombing of Berlin is not mentioned in the text of the article. Berlin in quoted in a citation because the citation is being used to verity that the text of the article is correct. The paragraph on the bombing of Germany does not claim that bombing Germany was terror bombing it claims that the contemporary German government used the term as propaganda. As far as I know until Churchill sent his memo, no one in the British or American Governments had ever claimed that bombing Germany was terror bombing, a statement that Churchill redacted when asked to do so.

As I said above the Blitz paragraph does nothing to help explain what terror bombing is, instead it attempts to the use the term to describe what the some think Blitz was. --PBS (talk) 01:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. You are seriously trying to say that a bombing campaign widely described as being terror bombing doesn't provide an example of terror bombing? You have no consensus to remove it - yet you just have, that is unacceptable. And still you cling to your lone example while refusing to allow others. Hohum (talk) 13:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I support PBS's decision to remove it. Apart from the factually dubious claim that it was a 'terror bombing campaign' (contradicted by masses of historical evidence to the contrary, including the British official history). Given the weight of evidence, to describe it as an example of a terror bombing is an exceptional claim, and will require exceptional sources. I fear that non-historic oriented websites such as the BBC and the private opinion of common people will not suffice I fear. Furthermore, its inclusion only seems to create a POV fork of other articles describing the event in great detail, without the simplifying it and adding dubious claims.

Also as it is, the article is about the description of the evolvement of a propaganda term, not the military operations themselves. Strategic bombing of World War II already covers that. Otherwise we may start making a long list of the alleged terror bombing raids of both sides, and it will never end, but only attract POV warriors. Try to focus on the development of the term instead. Kurfürst (talk) 13:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The Blitz was, and is widely considered as a terror bombing campaign. If this article is supposedly trying to explore the use of the term, then it is ridiculous to omit the Blitz. Some sources already have been provided, they were just removed. More than two editors have already shown their desire to keep the Blitz as an example. I have also attempted to gain consensus on how to expand the article, but have been presented with ludicrous arguments which amount to "Only the Goebbels example is worth having, all others are the thin end of the wedge of including every single bombing that has been described as terror bombing" despite editors showing NO desire to do this. Hohum (talk) 20:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

What is your source that supports the claim that "the Blitz was, and is widely considered as a terror bombing campaign"? What makes the Blitz any more significant than say the bombing of Serbia by NATO a few years ago? --PBS (talk) 21:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

This article will not be about how the phrase 'terror bombing' developed

Because this is an encyclopedia. Nonetheless PBS has decided the following: "This is not an article about any particular raid which someone somewhere has called a terror bombing, we have lots of articles with more neutral names about those raids. This is an article about how the phrase developed." That simply cannot stand. I understand why you want to limit the scope here, but the best way to do that to think clearly about the following: readers come to this article wanting to know what 'terror bombing' means. The primary ways to do that are to provide a consensus definition or the most well-known non-consensus ones, and a few examples of incidents that have been widely described as terror bombing. A prime example is, of course, Guernica, since it in fact terrorized people. I agree with you, however, and want to repeat, that this article should not be a list of every incident that one person or another has described as terror bombing. IMHO.Haberstr (talk) 22:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that in stead of describing the bombing of Guernica as an example of terror bombing, explain how it has influenced art, and the perception of what terror bombing is. --PBS (talk) 10:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The place for that would be in the articles Guernica (painting) and Bombing of Guernica. A brief mention in this article linking to these would be appropriate, however. Black Kite 10:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I actually agree with PBS and to some extent with Haberstr a more inclusive article, we must keep in mind the reader and when someone is looking up terror bombing The opinions of a nazi propaganda minister and the press conference of an allied commander with no context to the actual raid itself isn't very helpful, particularly when there is a great deal of scholarly material out there that could be incorporated. Sherzo (talk) 11:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree also that the article needs to be more clearly focused on the main issues, but also as clear is the fact that we can't remove a sourced section about one particular example (the Blitz) whilst concentrating on another example. The article really needs to look like this;

• Lead para explaining origin of term
• Sourced definitions of the term and how it has evolved since its origin

• Brief sections on notable terror bombings (Guernica, The Blitz, Germany, others?)

Black Kite 11:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I broadly agree with Sherzo, Haberstr, and Black Kite. Although the sections on example terror bombings should be fairly brief, they do need to be well referenced. As much as possible we should rely on quoting the words of Secondary sources when describing them as terror attacks, to avoid having wikipedia itself characterise the attacks. This will help to avoid continual POV warring in the future. Primary sources should be entirely avoided when characterising an event as a terror attack. Primary sources could be used in a section about the first uses, or notable uses of the term - i.e. don't have a paragraph with a synthesis of both. Hohum (talk) 16:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The term "terror bombing" is not a precise military term, it is a propaganda term. Black Kite can you think of any notable bombing campaigns over populated areas that have not been described as terror bombing? How do you define "notable terror bombings" and "non notable terror bomings" , for example is NATO bombing in Serbia terror bombing, because people opposed to it have described it as such?[10] -- PBS (talk) 16:59, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Just like every war ever fought doesn't need to be in the War article, neither does every single event described as a terror bombing by reputable historical sources. You are muddying the water. We only need some examples, since that is exactly what a reader will expect. How do we choose them? By consensus, not by muddying. By usng the best sources available. As it stands, you still only seem to consider the allied bombing campaign against Germany as the only worthy example, with an introduction by Goebbels. Honestly, what message do you think that sends to the reader? Hohum (talk) 17:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Notable vs. non-notable is clear; have multiple independent reliable sources described it as such? This is the way we source things throughout Wikipedia, not just here. Black Kite 23:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I presume you mean independent of Wikipedia and not of the conflict. The truth is that for almost any bombing campaign one can find multiple independent reliable sources describing attacks a terror attacks. You are also walking into a minefield of systemic bias as it is likely that English language sources will tend to cover wars which English language nations are involved, and as it is Western nations particularly the United States which since WWII had tended to rely on air power more than any other state, one can see where "multiple independent reliable sources" leads. Now back to the article as it is at the moment what makes the London Blitz exemplary? Which source claims that "The Blitz on British cities in WW2 is often cited as prime example of terror bombing,"? --PBS (talk) 11:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

You are attempting to muddy the water again. You are inventing difficulty where there doesn't need to be any. Some exemplars for various conflicts is not impossible, nor even particularly difficult. I'm amazed that you think it's acceptable to have only one example and introduce it with Goebbels opinion. That is ridiculous. Hohum (talk) 13:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The article does not say that the Allied bombing of Germany was terror bombing or is an example of terror bombing what it says is "The German propaganda minister, Joseph Goebbels, ... frequently described attacks made on Germany as ..." which is very different from stating "The Blitz on British cities in WW2 is often cited as prime example of terror bombing" -- Who states that it is a prime example of terror bombing? Unless there multiple sources to back up that specific statement, what is it about the use of the phrase terror bombing that is specific to the attacks on London? The point about Goebbels is that the term originates in Germany (or at least was in use in Germany before it was in use in English). --PBS (talk) 17:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

If the paragraphs following Goebbels aren't an example of terror bombing, they are irrelevant to the article and shouldn't be included. If they are an example, they need to be framed in a less biased way, and balanced with other examples. Hohum (talk) 23:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

They are not examples of terror bombing they are examples of the development of the phrase terror bombing. Whether they were or were not terror bombing is a matter of opinion on the use of an emotive phrase. In just the same way as the bombing of Dresden triggered the widespread use of terror bombing in the English media and lead indirectly to a crisis in the UK government over the use of the phrase. Which in turn would be used as a source by David Irving used by to justify his use of the term for the bombing of Dresden. --PBS (talk) 23:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

For example the Readers Digest article of June 1941 the first use of ("terror bombing" in English), mentioned in the introduction is almost certainly a riposte to Nazi claims of terror bombing, unfortunately the two sources do not include enough of the article to include that in the article. We will have to wait until someone finds another sources that includes more of the article or makes that link for us. --PBS (talk) 12:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

So make that clear in the article. Hohum (talk) 17:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't because I do not have access to the original Readers Digest article. --PBS (talk) 17:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for being unclear, I was referring to the para above that starting "They are not examples of terror bombing they are examples of the development.." Hohum (talk) 18:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

What exactly is not clear in the article? --PBS (talk) 19:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

It is not clear that the Goebbels example and those that follow it are "not examples of terror bombing they are examples of the development of the phrase terror bombing." Hohum (talk) 19:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

"The German propaganda minister, Joseph Goebbels, and other high ranking officials of the Third Reich,frequently described attacks made on Germany by the Royal Air Force (RAF) and the United States Army Air Force (USAAF) during their strategic bombing campaigns as terror attacks. The Allied governments usually described their attacks on cities with other euphemisms such as area bombing (RAF) or precision bombing (USAAF), and for most of World War II the Allied news media did the same."

Given the content of the first paragraph how is this paragraph not clear?--PBS (talk) 23:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

It is vague and ambiguous, it gives the opinion of the German propaganda minister too much weight, and frames the following paragraph(s). It doesn't do what you say it is for, which is apparently to give "examples of the development of the phrase terror bombing". If it is for that, say specifically that is what it is for. Hohum (talk) 00:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

It does not give any weight to the Germans instead what it does is explain where the phrase terror bombing was first used -- in German propaganda, and popularised in English later in the war by Howard Cowan's AP report. I have just removed some formatting problems which had crept into the article and the pictures which have nothing to do with terror bombing.--PBS (talk) 02:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no need to say what the paragraph is for if the Blitz paragraph is removed and the original paragraph ordering is reinstated. --PBS (talk) 02:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Hohum analysis is correct Sherzo (talk) 16:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Sherzo, Whether or not the pictures have anything to do with the article (I don't think that they do), in placing them in the article you broke the formatting of the paragraphs. If you reinstate them please do it so in such a way that they do not break the format of the paragraphs. --PBS (talk) 17:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Sherzo please could you expand on your last comment. --PBS (talk) 17:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

What part of what I have repeatedly said aren't you understanding? The section surrounding Goebbels does not convey the analysis that you have said that it should do. Deleting an entire section to prevent interruption of your flow is unnacceptable. You could have simply moved your passages together and retained the Blitz passages. However, it still doesn't convey what you say it should. If its inclusion is to give "examples of the development of the phrase terror bombing", then you can simply say that, and give the other explanations that you need to use on the talk page to explain, but don't use in the article itself. i.e. as I have now said several times, there is a lack of clarity, it is vague in its intent etc. How about fixing it instead of deleting other passages against consensus. Hohum (talk) 14:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

edit: I'm in the curious situation of agreeing with Kurfürst's (now deleted) recent edits, as they were far more measured. Hohum (talk) 14:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

How would you say that the phrase terror bombing was part of a a Nazi propaganda campaign to imply that the Western Allies of strategic bombing offensive was against the laws of war ("The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everyone else, and nobody was going to bomb them." Bomber Harris), and that it entered popular usage in English through Howard Cowan's AP report? --PBS (talk) 14:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say that, or anything remotely like it, please don't put words in my mouth, address what I actually have said. Hohum (talk) 19:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I did not suggest that you have, but you have said that the paragraph that says that is "It is vague and ambiguous", so I am asking you how would you make it specific and non ambiguous? --PBS (talk) 21:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Early Septemeber

From the history of the article:

• 09:22, 1 September 2009 Kurfürst (do not represent the opinion of a few authors as historical facts; adding the context of British official history to the Blitz -if we *must* have these claims, then present all sources dealing with it)
• 11:29, 1 September 2009 Philip Baird Shearer (removing Blitz paragraph as does not exemplify terror boming. Removing pictures for the reasons already given on the talk page)
• 16:08, 2 September 2009 Sherzo (Please don't remove tags and sourced content without consensus, also if you have a problem with the position of images move them don't remove them.)
• 20:36, 2 September 2009 Philip Baird Shearer (rv to last version by PBS. Sherzo why did you not revert to the last version by Kurfürst? I have a problem with text not to do with the subjct and edits which break the text alread there.)
• 12:07, 3 September 2009 Sherzo (talk | contribs | block) (11,341 bytes) (Removing tags can be considered Vandalism, as can removing sourced material without consensus.)

"Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism." (see WP:Vandalism)

As there was no consensus to insert the information about the Blitz in the first place, and you have have not engaged in conversation about the edits on this talk page before reverting to a version before the edits that Kurfürst made without an explanation as to why you have done that. You keep reverting to a version which includes images which are only tenuously connected to the phrase terror bombing and which break the format of the current articles. I asked you above

Sherzo, Whether or not the pictures have anything to do with the article (I don't think that they do), in placing them in the article you broke the formatting of the paragraphs. If you reinstate them please do it so in such a way that they do not break the format of the paragraphs.

For which your only justification is embedded in the history of the article: "also if you have a problem with the position of images move them don't remove them." I think you should look at your own behaviour and ask yourself if someone behaved like that would it make it more or less likely that you could reach a consensus with that person? --PBS (talk) 16:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Sherzo please explain why you reverted out Kurfürst's edits. -- PBS (talk) 16:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

PBS please explain why you are saying that this article is about the phrase "Terror bombing" and not the encyclopaedic subject "Terror bombing". You have not established consensus to do this. I believe there is consensus to include the Blitz as an example. Hohum (talk) 19:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

We already have several articles (too many) on Strategic bombing campaigns. Just about every bombing campaign hist history has been described by people as terror bombing, which means that a list of "terror bomings" is just going to be a repeat of the lists in the other articles but written from a POV and this is not wikinfo. Content forks are against policy, and having a content fork with a built in POV title is even worse as it makes it next to impossible to build a balanced article.

However an article on the use of the term is educational and informative. For example who was the first person after the second word war to describe a campaign as "terror bombing" and why did they use it? would make for a far more interesting and informative, than just listing the next war in which bombing took placed and some author at some time has described as "terror bombing". --PBS (talk) 11:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

That is your minority view, you are entitled to it. Nobody has expressed a wish to make this another article on strategic bombing; you are repeating your thin end of the wedge, straw man argument, which doesn't reflect reality. Nobody has suggested adding every single bombing event that has been described as a terror bombing - in fact, it's only you who brings it up. The opposite has actually been suggested - i.e. limiting it. I've suggested a framework, but you have completely ignored this, and clung to your single example, repeatedly deleting all others.

I have no problem with including the first use, but it also needs to include common uses, uses by serious historians, propaganda uses - clearly shown as such, attempts at definitions by various notable people and publications, etc. Hohum (talk) 12:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Bacteriological bombing

I did not deleted that info which was added before user Philip Baird Shearer's deletion but are BW, added by anonymous user, part of "Terror bombing" as described in this article ? --Flying Tiger 17:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

This is an article about the phrase terror bombing. How does the information you added contribute to he development of the phrase? Or is this just an addition of information which could be added with less POV to one of the other articles about bombing which have more neutral titles and therefor allow the information to be presented with less of a bias (for example in Strategic bombing in World War II)? Before answering please read the archive and this talk page. --PBS (talk) 18:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

It should only be included if there is a respectable reference to support it (as being widely accepted as a terror bombing). Hohum (talk) 19:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Where is the source that says that the Blitz was "widely accepted as a terror bombing" campaign? --PBS (talk) 10:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

[11], a definition, [12], [13], Hooton 1997, p. 35: "Officially terror attacks (missions against residential areas) were banned, but this was a moot point when the Luftwaffe's combinations of big missions and Blaze Control tactics sought residential property for kindling". After a 5 minute web search and one book I have to hand. Hohum (talk) 12:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Not one of these sources say that the Blitz was "widely accepted as a terror bombing" the source you have quoted say completely the opposite! and the source you have given as a definition says "The notion of terror bombing becomes part of coercive air-power, demoralizing the individual element and thereby reducing national will to make war.", demoralizing the enemy is a legitimate military objective and it does not imply terrorism, (the British studies during the war found people were more demoralized by the loss of their houses than the killing of relatives). Given the definition used, then his example of the Blitz the less emotive phrase such as "demoralizing the enemy" can be used. However this is by the by not one of your cited sources state that the Blitz is a widely accepted as a terror bombing. --PBS (talk) 10:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Incomprehensibly, you appear to read the words somewhat differently to me, especially the section I specifically quoted. Demoralising the enemy by specifically targeting civilians isn't a legitimate military objective by any accepted rule of war, although it has sometimes become an actual military objective. You are attempting to correlate terror bombing only with being terrorised, rather than also including intending to terrorise. I also don't quite understand why you undermine your own argument that losing their homes was more effective at demoralizing than losing relatives - both were intentionally caused by the same bombs. Hohum (talk) 21:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

"Bacteriological" is not a word 99.236.221.124 (talk) 15:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is an acceptable alternate form of "bacteriologic". Binksternet (talk) 16:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Cranborne

I read the discussions and found that YOU wished to make it an article about "about the phrase terror bombing"... [[14]] However, this narrow scope is not shared by everybody. Meanwhile, even if we choose to adopt this narrow POV, it happens that in 1937, Lord Cranborne precisely refered to terror bombing in his declaration. Please take time to read it before calling for its deletion :

Words cannot express the feelings of profound horror with which the news of these raids had been received by the whole civilized world. They are often directed against places far from the actual area of hostilities. The military objective, where it exists, seems to take a completely second place. The main object seems to be to inspire terror by the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians...

— Lord Cranborne

--Flying Tiger 18:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

As a member of the British Government he supported the bombing of Germany, which the Germans (and later many others) claimed was terror bombing, so all that does is show that the term "terror bombing" like terrorism is "On one point, at least, everyone agrees: [it] is a pejorative term. It is a word with intrinsically negative connotations that is generally applied to one's enemies and opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and would otherwise prefer to ignore". It does not show that the events are terror bombing just that he thought that the raids were made to inspire terror. Or does that mean just because Goebbels described USAAF rsids on Germany as terror bombing does that make them so? --PBS (talk) 10:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

First, do you have sources to claim that Cranborne supported the bombing of Germany ? Second, let's remember Great Britain was not in war against Japan in 1937... Third, this declaration was made in the context of an investigation by the League of Nations. Fourth, you claim you want to have an article on the "development and usage of the term terror bombing". To achieve this goal, you must use historic examples and part of these examples is made of declarations or contemporary POV. Once again, I think an article about one or two historian saying that, according to them, one bombing made against a city on one day was a "terror bombing" is completly useless. How do you think historians make their research ? They analyse historic facts, and contemporary declarations are part of those historic facts. As such, the bombings of Nanjing and Guangzhou are examples of so-called "terror bombings" by contemporary testimonies. --Flying Tiger 13:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

This article should not just be about the phrase "Terror bombing", it should be about the subject "Terror bombing". This is an encyclopaedia, not a dictionary of entomology, readers will expect an encyclopaedic entry, not a narrowly framed one. Hohum (talk) 18:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Again i find myself in agreement with Hohum. Sherzo (talk) 06:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The development and usage of a term like terror bombing and why it is used is a legitimate article. A content fork of Strategic bombing is not. Just about every major aerial bombing campaign over the last 90 years has been described by someone as "terror bombing" if all we are going to do is list all the campaigns where someone has described an attack as terror bombing we may as well redirect this article to Strategic bombing. If we are going to have an article that looks at the development of the propaganda term then all well and good, for example what was the next bombing campaign (after that in Western Europe) that was described as terror bombing and who used the term and why did they use it, would be far more useful in understanding the term terror bombing.

Already we have had two insertions of campaigns which do not describe the usage of terror bombing instead they describe the campaigns in terms of terror bombing, without any explanation as to why the sources listed us those terms. Further they are distorted with POV as the wording is not supported by the sources. --PBS (talk) 10:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

From reading your posts it seems to me that you feel that no events that are terror bombing its merely a propoganda term applied to such attacks or campaigns. I can appreciate the view but i feel there is enough scholarly evidence to support that many academic have described certain campaigns as such in some cases retrospectively. Perhaps if a similar approach to the terrorism article would be helpful. I also feel its only polite to inform you I do plan to add a section on Guernica as it is notable. Sherzo (talk) 15:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you know of any scholar who has defined terror bombing or are they simply using it as an emotive term? --PBS (talk) 01:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

It is becoming very difficult to not feel that PBS is editing against consensus, acting as if he owns the article and its direction, is the sole arbiter of its content, and is edit warring with several other editors. I am REALLY trying to assume good faith, but it is becoming extremely difficult.

It's not up to us to interpret why a reliable source thinks an event is a terror bombing - that is clearly synthesis, and will just reflect the editors POV. We should include the thrust, or actual wording of respectable sources without trying to manipulate them. This article isn't a repeat of "strategic bombing" and you are again muddying the waters by suggesting it is. Nobody has said that is what they want. Hohum (talk) 12:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, a perfect résumé of the situation... --Flying Tiger (talk) 13:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

See this version that is precisely where this article is heading if you insist on including incidents that someone somewhere has ever described as terror bombing. I chopped that version because it was a POV fork of other articles. -- PBS (talk) 14:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

It's extremely clear that I haven't insisted that we include incidents that "someone somewhere" has described as a terror bombing. It is only you who ever come up with that straw man. Please read what I have actually said, which is quite different to your repeated misrepresentations. Hohum (talk) 16:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I know that you have not but, as you were the last person to edit the old version before I cut it down to size and you were involved in a revert war with Kurfürst, you of all people should know that including the version of the Blitz where terror bombing is being used to describe the Blitz, (and the Blitz is not used to describe what terror bombing is), will over time inevitably result in an article similar to the last one (as can be seen by the recent inclusion of China, which again does nothing to explain what terror bombing is ). I can not understand why you are so tenacious about including the Blitz when you ask in the section "#Bacteriological bombing" you state "It should only be included if there is a respectable reference to support it (as being widely accepted as a terror bombing)." yet have not produced one that makes such a statement about the Blitz. -- PBS (talk) 10:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

My, this is fun

Same dispute dragging on, I see. Why not open a request for comment on whether the article should:

1. . Only include the use of the Nazi propaganda term, per PBS.
2. . Have extra material as used in multiple reliable secondary sources.
3. . Be merged into a section of Aerial bombing of cities, as a POV fork? Fences&Windows 16:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Should the article cover terror bombing solely as a term or also include events that have been described as terror bombing?

Both. The article should mainly be about the events, and in the telling of the events it should discuss who called it a terror bombing. The description of the fluctuating usage of the term will require few sentences. Binksternet (talk) 14:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Second (which is also Both, since the second choice is inclusive of the first).
To reiterate my previous, incomplete suggestion:
What elements should be in the article? My suggestions are: Earliest contemporaneous uses of the phrase (or translated equivalent). Examples of when it became a popular phrase. A referenced explanation of how it is an emotive, inexact, propaganda term, but also one that even serious historians use. Examples of how it has been applied to events before its first contemporaneous usage. Hohum (talk) 21:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree with the above - you need to explain what the context of the phrase is, its origin, and how its use has changed (if at all). After that you can explain a bit more about some relevant historical event, although I'd limit this to a brief summary and do a "Main article:" tag. I was uneasy about the amount of detail used in the Dresden section on first read of the article, although on reflection it's not the detail that I was concerned about, but rather the lack of clarity within the article and what it is fundamentally about which I do not feel is stated clearly enough. Major Bloodnok (talk) 21:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The trouble is that two sections have been stuffed into the article since I rewrote which makes my rewrite on the 17 May hard to read. Please see this version it should be much clearer.

I rewrote it because the the article was nothing more than POV content fork of several other articles, I have been suggesting such re-writes since February 2006(see Talk:Strategic bombing/Archive 1#Redundancies and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Military history/Archive 18#Aerial bombing for lists of overlapping articles). What triggered this re-write is Talk:Terror bombing/Archive 1#Rewritten explained here it was because of an edit war over the content of the POV list that existed in this article at that time. We see the same thing happening now. For example is has been pointed out that the cited sources do not support "The Blitz on British cities in WW2 is often cited as prime example of terror bombing" yet this is not stopping people repeatedly putting the text back in without any attempt to fix the line.--PBS (talk) 22:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not suggesting that it should only include the Nazi propaganda term, but that it should concentrate on the development and usage of the term. For example did the Japanese also use the term about the American bombing of Japan and if so did they model themselves on German Propaganda, or did they take they use some other term because they did not consider the Japanese able to be terrorised by an enemy? After the end of World War II which was the next war were contemporaries used the term against their enemies? etc, etc. If the article can not be developed that way, like before it is going to be a POV fork of strategic bombing, then it should be merged into one of the other articles that have a less POV title.

I see the difference between option one and two (as listed in the #My, this is fun section above) as that between history of terrorism and Insurgency#Political rhetoric, myths and models the former is a POV list the latter is in sections that looks the underlying models put together by different academics. I think this article should model itself on the latter not the former, particularly as in the list case there are already articles that contain similar lists to the old terror bombing article, which list the same information with less of a bias. -- PBS (talk) 10:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure this article should exist at all. Articles should be on topics, not terms: Wikipedia is not a dictionary. There is no separate field of knowledge here that could not be dealt with in an article on strategic bombing. The existence of the article is bound to encourage the contribution of ad-hoc POV examples, leading to a list rather than an article. Cyclopaedic (talk) 13:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I would be happy to redirect this link to one of the other articles that cover the same ground, if there is no agreement not to turn the article back into a POV list. -- PBS (talk) 17:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

the may re write was truely awful, not only was it badly written but provides no context so is absolutely useless to anyone not familiar with the article. Sherzo (talk) 14:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

In what way was it badly written and what article are you referring to?

Also do you think that your alterations to the text in the last 24 hours (a revert) improved the article? If so how?

On your talk page I explained that the source seemed quite legit, and a simple search Google search on on [ Collier "The Defence of the United Kingdom" ] returns lots of hits on it, for example the fourth on in the list returned is "History of the Second World War: The Defence of the United Kingdom ..." I am amazed that you could not manage such a simple search. There really was no need to change the tag from "fact" to "dubious", as I would have been more than willing to have helped you if you had asked on my talk page or on this page for help. -- PBS (talk) 17:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

And as I told it the HMSO site and google did not return it as Britain's "Official History" the book may well exist but the issue is if it is the offical history of the country. Sherzo (talk) 13:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Why did you not Google search on the book name and author? Before you made a revert without bothering to be selective (why put back the dubious tag?) in what you reverted, an IP editor added a link to History of the Second World War. Why did you not read it? --PBS (talk) 17:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

You might also like to read Official history -- PBS (talk) 17:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

"I would be happy to redirect this link to one of the other articles that cover the same ground, if there is no agreement not to turn the article back into a POV list" - PBS

Moot, straw man. No editor has expressed a desire for this article to be a POV list. Hohum (talk) 17:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

What is it that you think makes either the Blitz or the bombing of large Chinese cities anything but the POV of some historians and authors. There is no evidence that the British population were terrified by the bombings, at no time did their moral break -- quite the contrary.-- PBS (talk) 07:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

It is clear to me that "terror bombing" is just a POV term for bombing of cities, strategic bombing or whatever we want to call it. These are not separate topics and should not have separate articles.Cyclopaedic (talk) 08:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The "POV" of notable historians isn't POV. It's what wikipedia articles rely on for sources. Terror attacks, in this case bombing, aren't always classified by whether they cause terror, but also by whether they were intended to do so, and far more importantly for wikipedia, whether reliable sources classify them as such. Not all strategic or tactical bombing attacks are described as terror bombings, so there is a clear difference. Hohum (talk) 21:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mention tactical bombing. There isn't sufficient difference between strategic bombing, bombing of cities and "terror bombing" to merit separate articles - any distinction should be dealt with within a single article. Once again we are getting hung up on writing articles about terminology and not about topics. Cyclopaedic (talk) 09:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I get that you think it isn't distinct and different, and shouldn't have it's own entry, while I think it should, and have explained why. Hohum (talk) 15:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Hohum you wrote above The "POV" of notable historians isn't POV of course it is for example take Donald Bloxham's comment that "The bombing of Dresden on 13-14 February 1945 was a war crime." if that is not a point of view I don't know what is! You write Terror attacks, in this case bombing, aren't always classified by whether they cause terror, but also by whether they were intended to do so, and far more importantly for wikipedia, whether reliable sources classify them as such. You have now introduced 4 different combinations with five possible outcomes. "Intent to cause Terror, no terror caused on the ground", "Intent to cause terror, terror caused on the ground", "No intent to cause terror, terror caused on the ground", "No intent to cause terror, no primary source that claims general terror on the ground" but a claim in a reliable source that terror was caused. The term is an emotive propaganda term. The use of it does not mean that terror was caused, what does terror mean in this context how does one measure it?

Hohum I don't think you have explained why there should be a POV list of incidents that some historian somewhere has claimed was terror bombing, particullarly as the historians are not working from an agreed definition of what the propaganda term "terror bombing" means, either they give their own definition or give none, that is not creating a list of compatible incidents, it is an OR list with only a veneer of similarity. --PBS (talk) 18:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

PBS, you will never get historians to agree on the definition, and this article will always reflect the various dissimilar and incompatible events described as terror bombings. This article will not be neat and tidy. The conflicting viewpoints of expert historians are not to be avoided—they are to be incorporated. Binksternet (talk) 17:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

If what you say is true "you will never get historians to agree on the definition" then any list based on terror bombing is a synthesis because it is associating claims that are not the same, and implying that they are. Further your edit put back a section on Dresden, and broke the explanation of how the use of the term terror bombing first became used in English. --PBS (talk) 11:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

It is not synthesis if the various historian opinions are presented as such. I placed your Goebbels/Churchill paragraphs into their own section rather than in the lead section. Those paragraphs do not summarize the article, they expand it. Binksternet (talk) 15:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

It is a synthesis because someone reading a list of such comments will assume that they are all using the same definition. Further there is no agreement that the sections Chinese or that the Blitz should be in the article as there is no consensus that they are representative of terror bombing. The section in what you call the lead describe the development of the term. The two sections should be deleted. -- PBS (talk)

No, a synthesis performed by the reader is not our worry. Ours is the prevention of synthesis by the writers: us. Regarding the section describing the development of the term as used by Goebbels and Churchill, the section follows after Chinese terror attacks, and should therefore not precede that section chronologically. A consensus is forming, but it doesn't include your deletions of the Coventry image and the Dresden section. Binksternet (talk) 17:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Consensus version is better written and structured and just looks a hell of alot better to, why this article was allowed to be vandalised from the much better and useful article to the one PBS is pushing is beyond me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.239.38.135 (talk • contribs) 15:15, 20 September 2009

I haven't explained why I want a POV list, because I don't want a POV list and have never said I wanted one. Quite the opposite, I want several, representative examples supported by respectable sources. I have said this so many times, I wonder how you can keep suggesting I'm saying anything else. If there are conflicting, respectable sources, both sides should be given, they don;t have to be compatible. This is normal wikipedia operating policy. Perhaps you just don't understand the difference between POV, and conflicting but respectable sources. Hohum (talk) 18:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

How does one select a representative example? What defines a representative example? --PBS (talk) 08:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Binksternet you wrote "No, a synthesis performed by the reader is not our worry." Actually it is see the first sentence of WP:SYN "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources."

User:Binksternet you wrote "Regarding the section describing the development of the term as used by Goebbels and Churchill, the section follows after Chinese terror attacks, and should therefore not precede that section chronologically." Not at all because at the time those attacks the term terror bombing did not exist in English (first usage June 1941). The usage of the term in English is precisely what this article should be about, it the article is not to be a redirect. Reformatting this back into a POV fork of other articles is not the way to go.

How does the Chinese section bring clarity to the subject? There is a fundamental problem with listing bombing attacks under the term "Terror bombing" because terror bombing is not synonymous with "bombing to demoralise the enemy", because that can be done without terrorising the population. A clear example of this were the Luftwaffe and RAF nuisance raids which were designed to cost the enemy far more from disrupt sleeping patterns, etc than they cost the respective air forces to muster. As is well known lack of sleep is debilitating on the moral and efficiency of a targeted population (be it military or civilian). -- PBS (talk) 12:47, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

PBS — "How does one select a representative example? What defines a representative example?"

By them being used in respectable sources, the same method wikipedia uses for every single other article. Please stop editing against consensus, as you have just done again. Hohum (talk) 13:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

There is a difference between describing something is terror bombing and stating that something is an example of terror bombing. Do you have any sources which we can cite that state that A.Author say that such and such is in their opinion an example of terror bombing. As I said above after World War II who was the next person to use the phrase, did any one in 1945 accuse the Americans of using terror bombing on the Japanese, (did the Japanese use the phrase, if not why not?)

PBS said "The usage of the term in English is precisely what this article should be about" but the sources note that the term as it developed was applied in retrospect to events that happened before it was first used. The article can certainly include these earlier events rather than beginning strictly in June 1941. If a world leader called something terror bombing, we can discuss it in the article. Binksternet (talk) 13:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

But it the accusations happen retrospectively then the correct chronological order is after the usage by the Germans and then Howard Cowan news release. Howard Cowan was an American, and as the phrase was D noticed out of the British press it was used in the A.P. syndicated news release in the USA and not in the British Commonwealth press. Which world leader before Hitler called something a terror bombing? -- PBS (talk) 23:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

For the benefit of those of us not involved, can someone please explain in clear terms what the current edit war is about? Cyclopaedic (talk) 05:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

PBS — "There is a difference between describing something is terror bombing and stating that something is an example of terror bombing." This is a distinction without a difference. If a respectable historian describes something as a terror bombing, they are making it an example of a terror bombing. Hohum (talk) 13:34, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

There is a difference between describing the two. The former is being described as terror bombing, but to understand what that means as regards the event one has to know what terror bombing is, as it helps to explain what happened. If something is described as a quintessential example of terror bombing, then one is using the example to help explain what terror bombing is. For example if I say that "Beaumaris Castle is a concentric castle", one would have to look up what a concentric castle is to understand what Beaumaris Castle is. But if I say "The design of Beaumaris Castle is the most developed example of the concentric castle design in Great Britain" then if one knows what Beaumaris Castle is, one can deduce what a concentric castle is. If however I was to say that the Tower of London is a concentric castle, without knowing what a concentric castle is I can not deduce anything from the statement, because the Tower of London is many other things as well and the Tower is not a quintessential concentric castle. -- PBS (talk) 18:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Cyclopedia — I think you will find it difficult to get a straight, single answer. Mine is; Several editors want this article to be a broad, encyclopedic article about terror bombing. I have suggested a framework a couple of times - to include attempts at definition by notable sources, also to note that it is used as an emotive term, as propaganda, but also used by serious historians, also its first uses, uses applied anachronistically, and notable examples as described by respectable historians. I have repeatedly said that I don't want a POV list - but there appears to be confusion by some about what POV is. If notable, respectable historians disagree about an event, we should include the disagreement, if one is a fringe view, it should be given little or no weight. My understanding of POV is that it is when editors give undue weight to unreferenced or fringe views.

I believe several editors are frustrated with PBS repeatedly reverting against consensus and clinging on to what seems to be his minority direction for the article. However, hopefully other editors will speak for themselves.

This is not to say that I agree with the detail of every non-PBS edit, they could do with improvement as well, but the answer is to reach consensus and improve them, not repeatedly revert. Hohum (talk) 13:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Again I find Hohum has said everything I would say and find myself in complete agreement I feel his suggested framework would be a prudent way to proceed at this point. Sherzo (talk) 14:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

There are neutral list of bombing raids that can easily be compiled from sources, but list of raids made up only of those which some historian or other has commented on as a terror attack is bound to be a POV list because it is selective. If one wishes to add to the the strategic bombing article, that a an historian thinks that a raid was a terror bombing raid then that is a totally different proposition. For example some historians have called the bombing of Dresden a terror raid but there were dozens of raids that month, and several more that night --71 Mosquitos to Magdeburg, 16 to Bonn, 8 each to Misburg and Nuremberg and 6 to Dortmund--([15][16]). To make a selective list of only those raids which some historian somewhere have called "terror bombing" is not encyclopaedic article and one ends up with all the problems that the List of massacres had, and this article had before I pruned it. Hohum should know that because he was involved in an edit war over this problem just before I pruned it. -- PBS (talk) 18:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Would anyone like to try to justify the inclusion of the section "Chinese cities" At the moment it seems like WP:SYN to me. -- PBS (talk) 18:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

PBS - " Hohum should know that because he was involved in an edit war over this problem just before I pruned it." I am not sure what this is supposed to mean. I have never been engaged in edit warring.

PBS continues to push his own point of view, and I predict that he will use his latest request for a justification for the inclusion of Chinese cities as a reason to make another revert that any reasonable person would know is against consensus. His arguments have been asked and answered multiple times, by multiple editors, yet he continues to re-ask them as if they never have been. This is not acceptable behaviour imo. Hohum (talk) 23:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Your answer is not a justification for keeping the Chinese section in the article. -- PBS (talk) 08:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I entirely agree with Hohum. I answered many, many times to PBS' question. Once again... Cranborne's declaration is a contemporary comment made in the context of an investigation by the League of Nations. To achieve an article on the "development and usage of the term terror bombing", you must use historic examples and part of these examples is made of declarations or contemporary POV. Contemporary declarations are part of historic facts. As such, the bombings of Nanjing and Guangzhou are examples of so-called "terror bombings" by contemporary testimonies. --Flying Tiger (talk) 13:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The statement by Cranborne does not include the term "terror bombing", to repeat what I said before: As a member of the British Government he supported the bombing of Germany, which the Germans (and later many others) claimed was terror bombing, so all that does is show that the term "terror bombing" like terrorism is "On one point, at least, everyone agrees: [it] is a pejorative term. It is a word with intrinsically negative connotations that is generally applied to one's enemies and opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and would otherwise prefer to ignore". It does not show that the events are terror bombing just that he thought that the raids were made to inspire terror. Or does that mean just because Goebbels described USAAF raids on Germany as terror bombing does that make them so?

Flying Tiger, you asked above "do you have sources to claim that Cranborne supported the bombing of Germany". I don't need one because as a member of the British Government during World War II he was bound by the concept of collective responsibility that all Westminster style cabinet governments have, and the British Government approved the area bombing directive, but here is one: "Viscount Cranborne, Government lead er of the House of Lords, gave the prelates a firm reply. He denied that R.A.F. bombings were terror raids, told how last summer's flights over Hamburg had cost the Germans 400,000,000 man-hours, insisted that industrial life ceases only when 'the whole life of the cities in which they are situated [is brought] to a standstill . . . ".--PBS (talk) 07:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

PBS - "Your answer is not a justification for keeping the Chinese section in the article." Actually, it is, as it notes that the majority seem to prefer its inclusion; while your lone contested question is not justification to remove it. Hohum (talk) 22:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Hohum, I think Flying Tiger would be better at answered a question put to him. Many people use the term terror bombing, as a propaganda tool that does not mean that what they are describing were or were not terror bombing, Cranborne demonstrates this quite nicely (with his statement of Japanese and British bombings). The first sentence of the section starts "Japanese terror bombing was independently conducted by the Imperial Japanese Navy Air Service and the Imperial Japanese Army Air Service." This is a statement of fact no opinion. Hohum what is the justification for including such a sentence? -- PBS (talk) 12:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

PBS, I do not think that, we can use the fact that Cranborne made a public declaration supporting his government's bombing in Germany during the war can be use to show that his comment on Japanese bombing, made at a time when Great Britain was not at war with Japan, is untrue, biased and unfair or a "propaganda tool". As I pointed, in 1937, the League of Nations made an investigation which culminated in a resolution blaming Japan for its conduct. Cranborne comment on "terror" was made in relation to this and once, again you do not have any proof that all this process was mere propaganda. Anyway, you never provided any rational arguments against my claim that historian's methodology is based in part on contemporary comments. As we all know these comments do need to scientific analysis, they just need to describe a contemporary fact. The problem here is that you are the only user who stick to a narrow view of the historic methodology. Thus, according to you, this article should only be a list of strict encyclopedic definition on "terror bombing" made by a lost of reputed historian. However, to be useful, this article must be much broader and cover also contemporary comments. The burden of proof should be on the shoulders of the one who claim that the declarations were unfounded and mere "propaganda tools". --Flying Tiger (talk) 14:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Such comments as Cranborne and the League of Nations position have to be seen also in the light of the 1938, Amsterdam Draft Convention for the Protection of Civilian Populations Against New Engines of War and the League of Nations statements in the same year.[17][18], but that does not mean that the bombings were terror bombings as is stated in this article. Indeed I am happy to use Cranborne as an example of the hypocrisy many show over this issue, but that does not mean we need a specific section on "Chinese cities". A mention of Bishop George Bell (see the Times article above) as someone who was consistent in his views, is something that could be contrasted against Cranborne. -- PBS (talk) 16:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Propose merge to Aerial bombing of cities or Strategic Bombing

This RfC has clarified to me at least that this article is impossible to write neutrally. There will never be agreement on how to write it. A strict article on usage of the term over time might be possible if everyone agreed, but editors want to include various bombing campaigns that have been called terror bombing, which inevitably bloats the article and leads to edit warring. Because of this, I propose that "Terror bombing" be merged into Aerial bombing of cities as the final sectionStrategic bombing. That way the definition and use of the term can be discussed, and as the actual facts about the bombing campaigns will be described above there will be no temptation to repeat them. Fences&Windows 21:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support - this is a discussion of a word, not a topic, mixed in with a POV fork. Aerial bombing of cities is also pretty terrible, being only a list of incidents, and I should like to see that further merged into Strategic bombing, but that's for another day. Cyclopaedic (talk) 23:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- PBS (talk) 07:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC) Also support merging and redirecting to Strategic bombing as either carry less problems of bias. -- PBS (talk) 13:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - I believe this may just move the problem somewhere else and damage that article. I'm not sure about the continued belief that this article will "bloat" either. It's currently rather small, no editors have said that they want to include each and every possible example, and a number have said the complete opposite. The development of this article has been stifled by repeated reverts by a minority, so I'm not sure why it should be considered impossible to overcome that. However, my main reason for opposing is that the target is essentially a list article. Also, shouldn't both of the articles involved be marked with template:merge related templates to foster discussion from editors and users of each page? (done) Hohum (talk) 22:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

"my main reason for opposing is that the target is essentially a list article", as an alternative would you also be in favour of merging the article into Strategic bombing ? --PBS (talk) 12:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Although it's my main reason, it's not the only one, as already stated. Hohum (talk) 22:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Terror bombing is a distinct concept with a large enough base of scholarly sources to merit its own article. Sherzo (talk) 09:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose The proposed target is poor. The article Strategic bombing seems the best of the three having both the best title and the best content. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, Strategic bombing is a better target. Fences&Windows 23:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• I Support a merger to Strategic bombing which has a good title per WP:COMMONNAME and provides a better context for the various methods of attacking key industries, command centres, housing and popular morale. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. There are so many citations of terror bombing in the literature that this subject should have its own article. Putting terror bombing in the Strategic bombing article doesn't work—this sentence leads off the second paragraph in that article: "It [strategic bombing] differs from terror bombing..." Binksternet (talk) 15:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• That can and should change. A sanitised view of strategic bombing would be a POV-fork and not NPOV. Britannia covers terror bombing under general headings such as Air warfare, Strategic bombing and specific campaigns like the Spanish Civil War and so should we. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Sentence changed and text that I added to this article has been included in Strategic bombing. I made these changes a couple of days ago and no one has reverted them. So I have now redirected this page to that article. There is a list at the end of Strategic bombing#Strategic bombing events which can be developed further if someone wishes to do so. --PBS (talk) 12:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

See also

• Bombing of Warsaw in World War II —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jan333 (talk • contribs) 08:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Terror Bombing, a good but controversial article, ended

Noting the discussion, [19], still I don't see the encyclopedic sensibility or basic logic of subsuming "terror bombing" into 'Strategic Bombing'. Terror bombing's definitional purpose is to induce terror, while strategic bombing's definitional purpose is to raze the enemy's economic capacity. I'm sure there's overlap, both topics are about bombing, but if I were looking for information about terror bombing or a history of that, I certainly wouldn't expect it to be in the strategic bombing section. But my larger point is, you don't generate progress in this encyclopedia by destroying knowledge. Yes, there's completely legitimate disagreement about what terror bombing is and isn't, just as there is disagreement on anything with the word 'terror' attached to it. The duty of an excellent encyclopedia is not to run away from controversy, and certainly not to eliminate content, but to include the disagreement. (As I'm attempting to do in History of Terrorism). Where is the information on terror bombing now? Well, it's largely in the weirdly named Aerial bombing of cities. What do cities have to do with it? Isn't terror basically about bombing civilians, whereever they are, countryside, village, and so on? Even stranger, looks like I agree with Sherzo on this matter (from the basically evenly split discussion on merging): Oppose Terror bombing is a distinct concept with a large enough base of scholarly sources to merit its own article. Sherzo (talk) 09:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)Haberstr (talk) 20:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The article was constantly warred over, and there is no 'bright line' between strategic bombing and terror bombing. It fits very well into that article. Fences&Windows 20:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

It is true that there is no bright line, but the way that terror bombing is covered in the article Strategic bombing is woefully incomplete. That article repeats several times that terror bombing is a pejorative term and the concept doesn't exist beyond trying to win a war with strategic bombing. Ri-i-ight. I think terror bombing can hold its own as an article, with lengthy discussion of historic uses and critical thinking on the subject. Binksternet (talk) 21:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

There wasn't consensus on merging the article to Strategic Bombing, so I encourage any editor with knowledge, sources, enthusiasm and a great deal of patience to try and improve this article. Bearing in mind what information a typical user will want to find in the article. Hohum (talk) 03:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

There was no consensus for a separate article. The problem was that when I rewrote the article to move it away from a POV list. If anyone had added an analysis of the use of the term by different well respected academics or an analysis of the term by one of more academics. But not one editor added such an analysis to my base article instead other editors started to data mine books and articles to re-create a POV list of attacks that someone some where in some source had described as a terror attack.

The problem is that it is a POV term and any list created that way will be a very biased list. So given the failure of the article to develop along academic lines, it is much better to include it into the article strategic bombing as any list that is created there will more complete more representative and less bias.

Let me give you an example: Why is the bombing of Dresden by the RAF terror bombing but not the many hundreds of nuisance raids that were flown by RAF mosquitoes? The trouble is that only the most spectacular attacks are called "terror bombing" by authors who use the term, they ignore the mundane which for those on the receiving end are just as moral sapping as those called "terror bombing" by those with an axe to grind or a point to make? It follows that any list created by data mining reliable sources will only be a list of those raids called terror bombing by one or more reliable sources, it will not be a list of terror bombing raids. Further as there is no agreement as to what defines "terror bombing", any list crated will be a concatenation of different types of raids with nothing in common other than some author somewhere has called a particular raid "terror bombing". -- PBS (talk) 05:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Haberstr you wrote "Terror bombing's definitional purpose is to induce terror, while strategic bombing's definitional purpose is to raze the enemy's economic capacity." who says? Undermining the morale of a belligerent to reduce their ability to resist has always been a legitimate part of warfare, has always been a part of strategic bombing. Do you have a source that makes the distinction that you are making? -- PBS (talk) 05:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

PBS has opposed the inclusion of lists many times, yet nobody has shown any desire to make this article a POV list. Any representative examples would require reliable, verifiable sources, which every other article on wikipedia requires. His theory seems to be that there are no reliable sources about terror bombing. Suggesting that this article is special and different, and would be POV by following the same rules, isn't credible. The reliable sources noticeboard, the fringe theory noticeboard and the neutrality noticeboard can all be engaged if required, as can the history and military history projects.

I also wonder, again, what PBS considers POV. My understanding is that it is when editors push their own POV without considering what reliable sources state. It is not when the (sometimes conflicting) opinions of reliable sources are included. Hohum (talk) 16:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

PBS writes "It follows that any list created by data mining reliable sources will only be a list of those raids called terror bombing by one or more reliable sources, it will not be a list of terror bombing raids." I wonder how PBS can insert himself between the reader and the reliable source. Can we consider PBS to be more reliable than the reliable sources? No. Wikipedia doesn't work that way... We show the reliable sources even when they contradict each other. Binksternet (talk) 17:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Before I rewrote the article it was a arbitrary list of raids and campaigns, and after I rewrote it, the sections added were creating another arbitrary list, not because they explained what terror bombing is but because the editors who added them though that terror bombing described the raids. I am not implying that this was the intention of any one editor, but it was a culminate affect. The evidence in the edit history first the Blitz was added, then China, and just before it became a redirect, Warsaw.[20]

What I mean by "terror bombing described the raids" is that if an historian described say the London Blitz a terror bombing because xyz but excluded the raid on Coventry because of abc then that informs the reader about that experts view on terror bombing, but just finding in a book or an article a claim that such and such was a terror raid does not say anything informative about terror bombing (and if that raid in included, if a source can be trawled up why not another and another, ... we have an arbitrary list). As with the use of the label terrorist. It is more informative to include who uses the term terrorist or pointedly refuses to do so, rather than the label itself which comes under "Well he would say that, wouldn't he?". -- PBS (talk) 22:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, nobody has expressed a desire to create a list without reliable references. The better references will include reasoning. I'll repeat - there are enough noticeboards on NPOV, neutrality and fringe vetting to avoid the problem that you keep presenting.

Also, "Thin end of the wedge" is a logical fallacy. Hohum (talk) 22:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)