Template talk:Terrorism/Archive 1

Comments

Needs work to de-bias this from an West-centric POV, but altogether a fairly nice job. Stevertigo 03:31, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Deleted the regional section: for three reasons: 1. Its a "global war on terror" (to quote certain people) and thus, how is terrorism, or these particular items "regional"? The fact that the US has its hand up the butt of most of the middle east makes it a kind of an oxymoron to call these things regional. 2. This is supported by the inclusion of September 11 terrorist attacks, which werent "regional" by any stretch. 3. And Palestinian terrorism, aside from the fact that its sort of disingenuous to separate it from Arab terrorism or anti-US terrorism, alongside of the 911 event it seems suspiciously like the work of someone with only two kinds of terrorism on their mind. Granted, these two links could go in the other category, but what rule governs the exceptional treatment of these two particular items? They are big, granted, but the categories must somewaht resemble the reality of a larger world with very differing pov (according to the polls, reportedly). Stevertigo 03:40, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Excellent points. Kingturtle 10:05, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Secennionist terrorism

Why is Secennionist Terrerism missing? Its very major: IRA, ETA, Kashmir, Kurdistan, Tajikistan, Sri Lanka, ...? Gerritholl aka Topjaklont | Talk 19:40, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Making this Template NPOV

This discussion was copied from Wikipedia:Templates for deletion.

• I removed FBI Most wanted and U.S. State Dept. from the template. Hopefully now it is not as unbalanced. Josh 19:54, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Josh - instead of removing them, should we have a category for "formal classifications" or something? If we have articles about other countries' lists, let's link there, if not, that's still not a US-centric problem with the template, but with the content in general. (Comment by Mikeage.)
    • That might work, although I'm not sure that we have articles about other countries' lists, and I do not know enough about the topic to write any. I'm sure most countries do have some sort of list. Also, one thing that I noticed lacking was that there is no list from Interpol [1] or other international organizations. Josh 22:18, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
      • UK list: Terrorism Act 2000. I agree we should expand this template rather than shorten it. --ChrisRuvolo 07:30, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Layout

• User:Jiang suggested that we make this template into a footer. What does everyone else think? Josh 03:05, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

TFD vote results

(copied from Wikipedia:Templates for deletion -- Netoholic @ 08:16, 2004 Dec 20 (UTC))

Template:Terrorism

• bizarre list of terrorist-related articles entirely from the point of view of the US. - Xed 18:02, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I fail to see any POV here. Grue 19:54, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - If you dispute certain items, take it to the talk page. This series box is quite well done. -- Netoholic @ 21:14, 2004 Dec 1 (UTC)
  • Keep, though I suggest if you find some things objectionable you edit to make the article more NPOV. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:00, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep Is your prob with the contents of the article (which do need improving) or with the way they are linked up with the template - in which case how else would you link them? --JK the unwise 10:10, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep You can edit the template yourself, you know. Ashibaka tlk 13:26, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep US-centric? I see no POV issue here. The list looks very good to me. Mikeage 13:36, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep Propose an alternative template if deletion is due. __earth 10:30, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep Even if it's too US-centric, terrorism is a VERY valid issue. --Doctorcherokee 18:39, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I removed FBI Most wanted and U.S. State Dept. from the template. Hopefully now it is not as unbalanced. Josh 19:54, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
    • Josh - instead of removing them, should we have a category for "formal classifications" or something? If we have articles about other countries' lists, let's link there, if not, that's still not a US-centric problem with the template, but with the content in general. (Comment by Mikeage.)
      • That might work, although I'm not sure that we have articles about other countries' lists, and I do not know enough about the topic to write any. I'm sure most countries do have some sort of list. Also, one thing that I noticed lacking was that there is no list from Interpol [2] or other international organizations. Josh 22:18, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
      • By the way, if you would like to discuss this further, please use the template's talk page. I have copied this discussion to there. Josh 02:14, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: This has no chronological order and should really be a footer instead. --Jiang 07:18, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(end copied section)

Choice of the color scheme

I am wondering why this particular color scheme was chosen, exactly the same as in Template:Israelis and Template:Jews and Judaism sidebar. I guess we ran out of colors... Please change/provide suggestions for a better colors before I do it myself. How does off-red/brownish sound? ←Humus sapiens←ну? 22:29, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree, the colors are vile. Why do we need special colors? Why not just use something that blends in with the rest of WP? We shouldn't be drawing attention to the infobox at the expense of the article. --Lee Hunter 00:18, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I dislike these ostentatious vertical "series" templates (although this one is not the worst...at least it doesn't have a logo). If we have to endure them, it should be a rule that they can only be placed on pages they directly link to. Mirror Vax 10:56, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I also agree that we shouldn't use special colours for this template; class="wikitable" class="toccolours" (wikitable doesn't look very nice), as shown to the left, should work fine as well. (It also has the benefit of making the source code much simpler.) Ingoolemo ^talk 00:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Please consider my old comment at the top of this section withdrawn. The new colors are fine with me. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Categories

Can we add categories to the template? AndrewRT 00:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

there should be a domestic terrorism link on this template and

probly a comprehensive article about what that is. CrackityKzz 16:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Capitalist Terrorism

There's a link to capitalist terrorism, but it only goes to operation condor, which is clearly not the same thing. Even if it were to be classed as an example of capitalist terrorism, it isn't the apropreot page for such a link. Presumably, if Capitalist Terrorism doesn't exist to the extent that it warrants a page, it probably shouldn't be on the template. Since it doesn't actually link to what it says it does, and no such page exists, I'm going to remove. Larklight (talk) 20:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC) Was only just added anyway Larklight (talk) 20:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Palestinian, an ideology?

"Palestinian" is an ethnicity, not an ideology. I don't understand why some insist to categorize it as such.Bless sins (talk) 02:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why you insist on adding "Zionist political violence" to the template, but somehow have a problem with the Palestinian link. That obviously shows a bias. Yahel Guhan 02:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with categorizing Zionism as an ideology, no more than I have a problem with categorizing Islamism as an ideology. But "Palestinian" is an ethnicity, not an ideology. What's so hard about understanding that?Bless sins (talk) 02:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Palestinian is an ethnicity, but the palestinian cause, which is the cause of palestinian terrorism, is an ideology. It is either both or neither. I'd prefer neither. Yahel Guhan 02:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The article defines the concept in the first sentence: "Palestinian political violence or Palestinian terrorism refers to acts of violence committed for political reasons by Palestinians or Palestinian terrorists."

The link "Palestinian" is to article Palestinian people, and defines the term as "an Arabic-speaking people with family origins in Palestine". I see no mention of an ideology "Palestinian cause" (which is not an ideology) in any of the definitions.

You are correct that Palestinians are motivated by ideology. Example is HAMAS, classified as a terrorist group. But Hamas is included under Islamic terrorism, which is listed here.

Zionism on the other hand is a "political movement", not an ethnic group.Bless sins (talk) 03:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Palestinian political violence or Palestinian terrorism refers to acts of violence committed for political reasons by Palestinians or Palestinian terrorists. Therefore it is based on ideology. Politics are an ideology after all. Palestinian terrorism is based on politics, not ethnicity. What more needs to be said. It is ideologically based. Yahel Guhan 03:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's for a moment believe that Palestinian terrorism is motivated by an ideology. What does the scholarly community call such an ideology? "Palestinianism"?Bless sins (talk) 05:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Palestinian nationalism. Just as the ideology behind Zionism is Jewish nationalism. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Then the entry should state that.Bless sins (talk) 15:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

It remains to be checked whether Palestinian political violence is indeed referring to violence by Palestinian nationalist groups, or simply Palestinians.Bless sins (talk) 15:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you're right; I don't suppose there's any way of discerning whether the various Palestinian groups accused of terrorism were trying to create a Palestinian nation. Perhaps it was just random violence, with no particular goal in mind. Is that the point you were trying to make? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

What I mean is that all violence is not motivated by Palestinian nationalism. Some may be motivated by Islamism, or anti-Americanism etc. The point is that, while we are singling out ideologies on this template, we are not singling out any particular race (or ethnic group), and "Palestinian political violence" would be the only exception. Now the question remains is this: does the article "Palestinian political violence" refer to "Palestinian" the ethnic group, or "Palestinian [nationalism]" the ideology, as you said?Bless sins (talk) 18:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Terrorist Incidents 2008 map

That map has some factual issues and should be fixed / removed. For example, Canada is shaded as having one terrorist incident. The incident, a gas pipeline bombing, was specifically NOT called a terrorist bombing by the RCMP. Please correct. --65.127.188.10 (talk) 21:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Heh, as a Canadian plugged into the National Security scene, I had to wrack my brain to think of what the **** the creator of this map could have been thinking; I have removed the image pending a verified image with actual statistics. We need a verified image, before so widely distributing incorrect information.Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 23:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Request feedback

I've been doing some cleanup at Jewish religious terrorism and basically I've given up on the article altogether. It's a mess – no coherent lead, there's like one source that maybe recognizes such a thing as "Jewish religious terrorism," and some ancient history about Jewish zealots in the Roman Empire. Whether the article should exist at all is debatable, but it's certainly not at a standard to be linked to from the Template, considering the quality of the articles in it. I motion that the link to Jewish be removed from the Religious section of the Template on grounds of it being too sloppy an article to merit serious attention.—Biosketch (talk) 18:39, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

To reiterate some of the problems relating to the article on Jewish religious terrorism: firstly, there is no lead. There is one line, and it doesn't even explain what "Jewish religious terrorism" means or is. Secondly, the credentials of the sources are unclear. Mark Burgess, for instance, who is relied on for the purported link between first-century Zealots and modern-day radicals, is not a notable historian. (Who cites him?) Thirdly, taking the example of Keshet, there is at least one example of an organization about whom a claim is being made that they're a religious terrorist organization when the claim itself has only a Discussion page interaction to rely on but no actual sources in the article. Taken together, the article is a far cry from the level of thoroughness and scholarly soundness the other articles in this Template can boast, and indeed demand. I personally have no problem linking to Jewish religious terrorism from the Template; but I do have a problem linking to it when the article is as sloppy as it is now and has been for months.—Biosketch (talk) 06:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• The article's quality has nothing to do with its existence in the template. If the article is there it should be linked. If the article gets deleted (which it never will), then you can remove it from the template. Just for info, as your concerns of its quality is only relevant there. Take care and happy editing. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 08:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Adding template to articles

I notices that most of the articles don't have the template! I've add them to many article, but the following is still missing:

• All of tactics
• Topography_of_Terror
• House_of_Terror

I've used the following statement, as a summary, in-order to get editors here if they dispute a certain addition: ("add template: please don't remove until you delete from Template:Terrorism first!!!"). I'm heading to Zzzzzzzzzzzz, it's 3am already. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 10:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• I agree with user:SteveStrummer. We should stick to the core intention of this nav. I was adding the template to all mentioned article on purpose, to get others' opinion, as the contributors of each article have the right to discuss what's relevant and what's not. I made some clean-up. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 20:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
  • LOL, I did so and I got a stinging and vicious attack, including a blocking threat, back... Night of the Big Wind _talk 23:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Oh ya, haha. I hope it was a joke, lol. I had a doubt about the list of organizations. When a sockpuppet added 3 more organization, that category would bring us a looooong list to be neutral. But yes, removing the whole list was the best decision. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 06:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)