Template talk:Terrorism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Terrorism (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

Ordering[edit]

I was wondering if there is any specific reason for the way the "types" and "tactics" of terrorism are ordered. gren

What about the hijackings?[edit]

In the history section plane hijackings seem to be missing. I believe one of the first was done in Stockholm by Ustasha and there were numerous other ones by PLO.

Capitalist Terrorism[edit]

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?[edit]

"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[edit]

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)

US-led Campaign War on Terror's relation to this template's subject[edit]

I removed it as irrelevant. A co-editor has a different opinion. --JokerXtreme (talk) 14:04, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Request feedback[edit]

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)

Hindu (Saffron) terrorism in the wrong place[edit]

Currently, the link to Saffron Terror is from the Hindu link under the Religious section in this template. However, Saffron terrorism isn't a religious terrorism, it's a political one, as the article states. It is based around Hindu nationalism and Hindutva. This is political/nationalist terrorism, not religious. It should probably be moved around in the template. It's more a subsection of Right-wing terrorism. SilverserenC 04:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and moved it myself. I don't think anyone is really going to comment on here anyways, so I might as well just make the change and then respond to any disagreement if it occurs. SilverserenC 18:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
That's kool... Yep, be bold :p. There's only 48 watchers anyways, hehe. ~ AdvertAdam talk 08:59, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I have added Hindu terrorism along with Buddhist and Sikh terrorism as the Safforn terror is not entirely an political terrorism. Part of it is a religious terrorism. Thanks, --- Buzzzman 19:10, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Adding template to articles[edit]

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:

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)

Worst template ever[edit]

This template is one of the worst I ever seen. Terrorism is not a end by itself, it's a mean some organizations tried to achieve its goals. By that, it should not be treat isolated of the others, but in conjunct with the context inserted. Jack Bufalo Head (talk) 14:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)