I'm with you on deleting the article if necessary, as the only refrence REQUIRES a Los Angeles Public Library card. Any way to broadcast this need for sources?DONT MESS (talk) 19:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Image selection for the Ahmed Yassin article
The discussion has settled on three options. If you are interested in having a say in the selection, please visit Talk:Ahmed Yassin#Image selection for the Ahmed Yassin article and make your opinion known there. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 02:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Hiya, I'm an admin trying to deal with a dispute at the Jundallah and Balochistan conflict articles. I have no opinion on the article content, but since the disputes there are mainly involving two editors, it would help to get some other voices into the mix. The main points of dispute right now seem to be of definition: One is as to how many commanders should be listed in the infobox. If a news article states that "the deputy commander was killed", does that mean that the commander is notable enough to be listed? Another dispute has to do with whether the group should be called "separatist" or not. The group says it isn't separatist, but some sources do call it separatist, so there is a dispute as to how to list the information in the article. If anyone has experience with these matters, could you pop in? Thanks, --Elonka 17:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
time to revive the 2 year old newsletter? Some active admins for the project canget a bot to do it.(Lihaas (talk) 03:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)).
can we resserect the newsletter now dead for over 2 years. this seems to beone of the more active projcts so that would help cleaning up such article.(Lihaas (talk) 13:17, 20 January 2011 (UTC)).
Does Hezbollah belong in Category:Islamic terrorism?
A couple of editors have requested sources outside of the U.S. and Israel for the claim that Hezbollah ought to be included in Category:Islamic terrorism. I only speak English and have provided countless reliable sources for it, but they are all from U.S. and Israeli sources. Can anyone help out? Thanks in advance. --GHcool (talk) 00:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- It is a contentious issue. Hezbollah are only labeled as a "terrorist organization" by 5 countries. Hence it is a highly disputed issue. It would be like arguing China is not a country. Technically speaking, there are some 20 countries which do not recognize People's Republic of China as a country because they only recognize Taiwan. Poyani (talk) 23:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Khalid Ali-M Aldawsari
No article has yet been created, and creation of such an article will probably be strongly contested. A foreign student is accused of plotting to make bombs and target a house of a former president. The article mentions no obvious motives however, nor of his religious or political beliefs, though some might infer some motives from his use of the terms "Jihad" and "infidel".
It is time for Jihad' Agents also found a notebook believed to be Aldawsari's journal, in which he allegedly wrote that he'd been planning to commit an attack on U.S. soil for years and specifically sought out a certain scholarship because it would get him into the country and provide funds that would "help tremendously in providing me with the support I need for Jihad." In the same entry describing his pursuit of the scholarship, which he did obtain, he allegedly wrote, "And now, after mastering the English language, learning how to build explosives and continuous planning to target the infidel Americans, it is time for Jihad." The affidavit claims Aldawsari also created a blog where he posted radical messages. One post allegedly written by the Saudi said, "You who created mankind ... grant me martyrdom for Your sake and make jihad easy for me only in Your path." Redhanker (talk) 19:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
A quick tip off: There's an RFC that's relevant to this project at talk:al-Shabaab#Somaliland RFC. --Copper button 19:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I noticed that the Terror article has recently been created. In connection to that, I would like to know the opinion of the project's community about the need in such an article and its potential scope. Thank you in advance.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
All opinions welcome. walk victor falk talk 10:05, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
I have nominated Abu Musab al-Zarqawi for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dana boomer (talk) 15:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
This is a current event, and i am surprised that no one has of now began working on the article. Joyson Noel Holla at me! 15:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Image:Ayman Al-Zawahiri.jpg has been flagged for deletion, as it has the wrong permissions templates. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 06:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Remove News International phone hacking scandal from WP Terrorism
I noticed the article on the News International phone hacking scandal is part of WP Terrorism. I think it's outside the scope of the project, and would like to remove the tag. Any thoughts? (Also, if there's a more formal way for me to do this than on this talk page, please let me know. I'm new to being a part of a wiki project). Thanks!Gee totes (talk) 02:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- Agreed with your action. The phone hacking is a government scandal, it is most definitely not terrorism. Whoever originally added the template was severely mistaken. SilverserenC 02:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
List of possible article topics
If anyone is looking for ideas on articles we're missing, please feel free to take ideas off my personal To-Do list: User:MatthewVanitas#Planned_extremist_articles. It would be cool if you drop me a line to let me know though, as I might have sources, etc. for some of these and/or can collaborate. Hope this gives some folks some good ideas; I've had this list for three years and almost none of these redlinks have been turned blue other than by me, so quite a few groups unaddressed. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Please see the RfC at Talk:Operation Entebbe#RfC: Should Operation Eagle Claw Be Discussed In This Article and Do the Included Citations Support the Article?. –CWenger (^ • @) 05:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Bombings in Mumbai - title discussion
Readers here may be interested in contributing to the discussion at Talk:2008 Mumbai terrorist attacks#Requesting Move 2. Cheers. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:20, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Third and fourth opinions needed
We could use some other opinions on Template talk:Controversies surrounding people captured during the War on Terror as the discussion there has become over-personalized. --John (talk) 02:48, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Not sure about the change in the main page to say articles on non-civilian targets are not terrorism, they still should be. Wed need consensus to limit the scope on that. Also need to add state terrorism as it would be POV to limit to non-state terrorism.
Also think we can remove the pat-on-the-back to the founders from the lead of the main page.Lihaas (talk) 23:00, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
2011 failed Gothenburg terrorist attack can and should be removed. th arguements use are rubbish since the failed bomibng of times square, etc is on here as notable Lihaas (talk) 23:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
On a new article I wrote: Mohamed Alanssi, a FBI informant who set himself on fire in front of the White House in 2004. See Talk:Mohamed Alanssi as well. --Mnnlaxer (talk) 20:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Merge proposal: Counter-insurgency into Insurgency
I've proposed a merger of Counter-insurgency into Insurgency. Interested editors should comment on Talk:Insurgency.--S. Rich (talk) 21:39, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
- We should if we can --Katarighe (talk) 00:12, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
How does this project reconcile itself with WP:TERRORIST? I thought that WP didn't use the term "terorist" except in extraordinary circumstances, like the September 11 attacks which is an exception arrived at by consensus. --Nbauman (talk) 23:22, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- There is no WP:Terrorist. There are certainly more examples of terrorism than 9/11. Everything at Wikipedia is arrived at by consensus. --Mnnlaxer (talk) 15:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- WP:TERRORIST is a shortcut to the guideline Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch. If you click on the shortcut you'll see it. It says:
- Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution.
- I thought that the word "terrorist" should be avoided unless there was a specific consensus in that article to use it. Where is the consensus to use the word "terrorist"? --Nbauman (talk) 22:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, I saw that. That would be a concern to bring up about a specific use of the word "terrorist" in a specific article. What do you mean by reconciling being careful about using "terrorist" with the entire WikiProject:Terrorism? --Mnnlaxer (talk) 22:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
All CSRT and ARB pdf links on dod.mil are now dead
All CSRT and ARB pdf links on dod.mil are now dead
I don't know when this happened, but the URL directory tree was changed from www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/detainees to www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/operation_and_plans/Detainee. As an example, Mohamed Jawad's CSRT testimony used to be at: foi/detainees/csrt_arb/Set_44_2922-3064.pdf#33
Now the URL is: foi/operation_and_plans/Detainee/csrt_arb/Set_44_2922-3064.pdf#33
I would think that a bot could be constructed to fix this. Anybody know how? --Mnnlaxer (talk) 17:00, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
CSRT and ARB use in articles
From the time that they were released starting in 2005, documents on Guantanamo detainees have been very important - and controversial - sources. I'd like to start two discussions about their use in articles on detainees. The first, under this heading, could be a broad discussion about how and when CSRT and ARB should be used as sources.
The only point I'll make initially is that it is now six years since the first documents were released. While at one time, these documents were the only public information available about most of the detainees, the situation has changed dramatically since then. Besides the many released detainees, who are now available for news sources to cover, journalist have used the release of names and basic details of all the detainees to track down more information about them. I hope that all of you know about Andy Worthington's work in this regard. But the more notable detainees have had news coverage published about them. Thus, the CSRT and ARB information has become less important over time.
I'm sure there are discussions already out there somewhere that deal with this subject directly. Please post links to them here if you know where they are. --Mnnlaxer (talk) 17:25, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
CSRT and ARB articles, templates, and use of templates in detainee articles
My second discussion topic is more technical in nature. First, the CSRT and ARB articles haven't got much attention lately. They could use a review. Second, the templates for CSRT and ARB's are in the same state. Third, how should these templates be used in detainee articles?
Years ago for most detainees, the CSRT and ARB was the only information available. At that time, it made sense to develop a long template to be used in articles that explained what they were and provided a form to fill in the basics from the hearings. Now, it doesn't make much sense to do so, in my opinion. Sometimes, just a Main article template to CSRT or ARB would suffice and information contained in those documents can come from news reports. The two different approaches are exemplified in Mohamed Jawad#Combatant Status Review (which I'm currently working on) and Omar Khadr#Combatant Status Review Tribunal or Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri#Combatant Status Review.
PS - I would suggest deleting Template:GTMO-phone. It's only used in two articles. --Mnnlaxer (talk) 17:42, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
NPOV (freedom fighters, militants, terrorists, oh my)
What is the policy/regulation/procedure concerning groups that are labeled by some countries as "terrorist organizations". Would not Wikipedia:Terrorist apply? Some organizations are labeled as "militant" in the opening paragraph followed in the 2nd paragraph with the statement of certain countries that consider said organization as a "terrorist organization". Yet some individuals prefer the opening sentence to blantantly state this is a "terrorist organization". A clarification regarding this issue would be helpful. Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:45, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
- First, Wikipedia:Terrorist isn't a policy. It simply redirects to the "Words to watch for" section. That states that any use of those words needs to be explicitly cited. There is no one-size-fits-all template for any such terrorist organization. "Militant" isn't a prejudicial term in my opinion. It simply means "strongly held" or "extreme". That said it is best justified with a secondary source. If an organization is on some country's list of terrorist organizations, that is easy to cite. The important point is to write the text so that the opinion is coming from the source, not the writer. But, as I said above, this must be done on a case-by-case basis. If there is a current discussion on any particular article, list it here to attract more editors. --Mnnlaxer (talk) 20:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- Ok. Thank you very much. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:50, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Featured portal nominated for deletion
A Featured Portal related to this WikiProject, Portal:Biological warfare, has been nominated for deletion. Please see the discussion, at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Biological warfare. Thank you for your time, — Cirt (talk) 04:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
- Update: The discussion was closed as "Speedy Keep". — Cirt (talk) 05:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Rating and Feedback Requested
I'm looking at the Reactions_to_the_death_of_Osama_bin_Laden article, and I was hoping that this project could look at the article, and rate it. In addition, I'm hoping for any thoughts on what can bring the rating up to GA or FA status on the Talk Page. Thank you in advance for your feedback. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 20:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Scope of War on Terror article
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:War on Terror#Terminology. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Please add some eyeballs onto Talk:Martyrdom video, rev history of "Martyrdom video". Staszek Lem (talk) 16:04, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
How do you define terrorism?
When Talk:April 2012 Afghanistan attacks is tagged with this project's banner, is that a) done in error or b) done because this project has a wide and fluffy understanding of what constitutes terrorism? __meco (talk) 10:01, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- Is there serious contention that bomb suicides on embassies and hotels don't constitute terrorism? Even the Iranians called it that. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- I would contend that attacking the embassies of the occupying nations would seem a legitimate military target. To me the list of targets says legitimate military targets. As for the hotel I haven't heard anything specific. In fact, Tehran's condemnation seems to be the only reference to terrorism in the article. __meco (talk) 21:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- If they were truly occupying nations, they wouldn't need embassies. Your POV is showing. State actors have long held that attacks on embassies are impermissible, mostly because they renders further diplomacy very difficult to pursue. But this isn't a debating forum. The definition you sought is found in the lede of the project page. LeadSongDog come howl! 22:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- If terrorism is defined by a deliberate choice of non-combatant target, then apparently Mohammed Merah would fit in snugly. Some questions have been raised about his connection to Forsane Alizza, I wonder if participants here have some information. Tkuvho (talk) 09:12, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Sambhaji Brigade has been cleaned up and is fairly quiet at the moment, but it's the sort of page that could do with some friendly eyeballs watching it. Cheers.FlagSteward (talk) 18:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Please comment about a possible merge at Talk:September 11 attacks#Proposal of merge from Stairwell A D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:23, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Use of the terrorist label in specific article
I would appreciate the input from experienced members of the present WikiProject at Talk:Lars Gule#RfC: Use of the terrorist label and corresponding categories. __meco (talk) 08:54, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Someone just removed 2012 Aurora shooting from this WikiProject. I feel like it would remain in the scope of the project. Any thoughts? Ryan Vesey Review me! 02:05, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- If his motives had some political affiliation (a la Giffords' shooting_) then yes it could be considered lone wolf terroroism. Otherwise he could just e a nmutball and should be in WP Psychology or SociologyLihaas (talk) 14:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- No evidence that he had an ideological basis for his mass murder, or political affiliation. I think too many articles are already classified inaccurately as terrorist incidents. Sounds as if he is a nutball, as said so well above by Lihaas.Parkwells (talk) 18:48, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
2012 Burgas bus bombing
Would someone be willing to review the 2012 Burgas bus bombing article and give it a new grade? I am very unsure of how the system in grading works... Thanks --Activism1234 17:23, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Naming of victims
Does wikipedia have a policy on naming the victims of terrorist attacks? For example that victims - must be named if known, should be named, may be named, depends, should not be named, or must not be named. Or is each incident different? Thanks. --Flexdream (talk) 22:56, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- Generally the names of the victims are listed, since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia whose job is to provide information. Now, if there's a major terrorist attack and hundreds are killed, I highly doubt all of those will be listed. But if about 10-30 people are killed, I've seen it be listed. --Activism1234 23:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. I've seen examples of names. I've also seen examples of editors deleting names, saying they must not be included unless the victims are notable. Because I've seen both I am trying to find out if there is any policy. I agree with you that long lists, like 9/11 are impractical to simply list all the names in the body of an article, but those cases are thankfully rare and can probably be aoccommadated.--Flexdream (talk) 00:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
- If you're asking whether there's an official policy set in stone, I don't believe there is. But generally, since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, the names are listed. The excuse of "notability" is a terrible one. --Activism1234 01:16, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah there are some editors in the area me and Flexdream are involved in where editors have ensured that those articles by one side of the terrorist coin include a victims list whilst their preferred side of the coin articles don't. The amount of excuses and teaming up they do as well is tedious, disruptive and a clear violation of WP:NPOV. Mabuska (talk) 22:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Please share your knowledge on the matter in the AfD which is currently taking place. Thank you. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 19:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding the creation of guidelines for the notability of Guantanamo detainees/prisoners in general. The thread is No special treatment for Guantanamo captives. Thank you.--Joshuaism (talk) 13:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
RFC AIDS 2.0
I mentioned the AIDS 2.0 article as stub-class and low-importance for this project in its talk page, to offset the tendency to consider this disease as something purely medicine-related. Sure they will try to sell us a vaccine for it... Wakari07 (talk) 20:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Ansar al-Sharia needed
The Islamist group which was partially responsible for the embassy attack in Libya does not have a page. Ansar al-Sharia
redirects to Ansar ash-Shari'a
, a Yemeni group. Ansar al-Sharia should become its own entry with a
notice. Thanks! --Jprg1966 (talk) 20:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- You may be looking for Ansar al-Sharia (Libya). Redhanker (talk) 00:52, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Please participate in this discussion and share your opinion on the matter. Thanks. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 16:46, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Operation Entebbe, an article that your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. AIRcorn (talk) 14:33, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Religious terrorism
is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines
or whether it should be deleted
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religious terrorism until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. BigJim707 (talk) 07:35, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Recommendations to remove articles from Terrorism project
- I recommend that 2009 Little Rock recruiting office shooting be removed from the Terrorism project, according to the definition of what falls into this project. Although Muhammed/Bledsoe was originally indicted for terrorist acts, his charges at trial were state charges for capital murder, attempted capital murder and related weapons charges, to which he pleaded guilty. It is only his own statements that link him to jihad and AQAP, and his father said he couldn't "process reality." He did not attack civilians and was not part of a terrorist organization. The Arkansas prosecutor considered Muhammed's statements as self-serving, and said, it was "just an awful killing," like other killings they had. The article extensively quotes from Muhammed's letters to a newspaper months after he was imprisoned, but there is no evidence from independent newspapers to back up his claims. It seems to give UNDUE WEIGHT to a felon who pleaded guilty, although no RS found evidence for his claims.
- Similarly, Naser Jason Abdo should be removed from the Terrorism project. I am concerned that WP editors are over-eager to classify every violent event with a Muslim participant as terrorism and are ignoring published RS that offer other perspectives. For instance, the private sounds like he planned mass murder for grandiose revenge, not terrorism, and he was not tried for terrorism. The US Attorney in the case likened Abdo's plans to mass murders in 2012 at Aurora, CO and Milwaukee, WI, by individuals with "twisted agendas," not to terrorism. Abdo was being threatened with a court martial for child pornography, went AWOL and later planned alone to attack and kill some soldiers near Fort Hood. He was never affiliated with any organization and there was no evidence publicized that related to his following any terrorist website. Further, he did not have a civilian target. He was tried on state charges of attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction, attempted murder of federal employees, and weapons charges, and was convicted.
- Some editors are using articles with Muslim subjects as COATRACKS, listing under "See also" every other violent incident with a Muslim subject, and labeling it all as terrorism. Just wanted to express my concern. I've been going through some of the articles trying to add NPOV in terms of reflecting how they are being prosecuted, described by law enforcement, and what happens at trial or in pleas.Parkwells (talk) 18:48, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- I noticed that the Fort Hood shooting was included in a list of recent terrorist attacks in another part of this project, but have to disagree, despite politicians and former Bush officials calling it that. It does not meet the Project definition: it was a soldier attacking other soldiers in a mass shooting. He did not belong to a terrorist group, despite his email exchanges with al-Awlaki (which had been assessed at the time by the FBI as legitimate given his research.) He has been identified as having some mental instability and fits the pattern of mass murderers. It seems we should wait until the court martial before jumping on this as a terrorist case, no matter what the politicians say. DOD and law enforcement people have generally not been reluctant to classify events as terrorist when there is a basis, why not listen to them in this case?Parkwells (talk) 23:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- No, no, no. The "these are not terrorism" line is the line being promoted by CAIR and pro-Islamists as a cover story. Unfortunately, it has been accepted by the Obama administration which appears to largely accept the CAIR Islamist party line, along with everything else that George Soros and the Muslim Brotherhood promotes. However, Wikipedia is NOT bound by this single point of view, but must provide a balanced neutral NPOV. So if Obama and Media matters maintain that a muslim who follows Anwar al-Awlaki and shouts Allah Ackbar or openly tells the judge "I am an Al Queda terrorist from Yemen, you have to believe me", that is one point of view, but the distinct possibility that everyone else from Pam Geller to Fox News thinks differently must also be included. If Joe Lieberman and the Senate calls it terrorism, then it should be included in the project. Otherwise, every terrorism case where the Muslim Brother operatives have managed to get the sitting president to have his FBI and DOD buy the ridiculous cover story would be removed from Wikipedia no matter how many other people know this is a complete sham. It is simply not possible to believe Fort Hood was not a terrorist act unless one has political reasons to argue otherwise. It is obvious which point of view Parkwells is trying to promote, and I don't have a problem including that point of view as long as it is balanced with people who can see the obvious. Redhanker (talk) 00:50, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Question about trials and civil liberties issues
I've been working on Sami Omar Al-Hussayen, in which the Saudi defendant was acquitted on federal charges of conspiracy to support terrorist organizations through his activities as a webmaster. It was considered a significant case in terms of civil liberties under the Patriot Act. The Act has been included in the Terrorism Project, so I also included this article in the Project. Or, is there another category for litigation of alleged terrorists? This case was notable in a couple of respects, according to RS about it.Parkwells (talk) 23:45, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Economic terrorism. Thanks. Borock (talk) 06:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Fort Hood Shooting casualty figure RfC
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Fort Hood shooting#Request for Comment. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:04, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Do we have an article on where a knife is used on a stabbing spree / mass stabbing instead of a gun (school shooting) ? school massacre should cover both, and bombings as well) -- 18.104.22.168 (talk) 06:12, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
World Trade Center
World Trade Center, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. AIRcorn (talk) 06:50, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
File:Two suspects wanted by the FBI for the bombing.jpg
File:Two suspects wanted by the FBI for the bombing.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 22.214.171.124 (talk) 05:02, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
File:BostonSuspect2.jpg & File:BostonSuspect1.jpg
File:BostonSuspect1.jpg and File:BostonSuspect2.jpg have been nominated for deletion -- 126.96.36.199 (talk) 23:50, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
al-Qaeda in the Islamic Republic of Iran?
Is there an article on al-Qaeda in Iran (AQIRI? perhaps?) that's been in the news recently? -- 188.8.131.52 (talk) 05:17, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
image:The-tsarnaev-suspects-fbi-photo-release.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 184.108.40.206 (talk) 04:25, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
image:Suspect1and2.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 220.127.116.11 (talk) 23:42, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
2013 Boston Marathon finish line explosion.png
file:2013 Boston Marathon finish line explosion.png is under NFCR -- 18.104.22.168 (talk) 08:12, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
File:Building after 1998 bomb blast.jpg
File:Building after 1998 bomb blast.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 22.214.171.124 (talk) 05:48, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Dutch government analysis on terrorism on the internet
As stated in the following Bloomberg article, this report discusses the "dark net" that many terrorists use
WhisperToMe (talk) 21:32, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
"How the FBI Helps Terrorists Succeed" by Heather Maher
I found this source but not sure where it goes:
WhisperToMe (talk) 03:05, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Grounded airplanes at Halifax International Airport on September 11, 2001.jpg
image:Grounded airplanes at Halifax International Airport on September 11, 2001.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 126.96.36.199 (talk) 06:37, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
image:Glenane.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 188.8.131.52 (talk) 07:14, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Targeted Killings: Law and Morality in an Asymmetrical World
I've created the new article about the book Targeted Killings: Law and Morality in an Asymmetrical World, which discusses the subject of targeted killing.
Further suggestions for research and additional secondary sources would be appreciated, at the article's talk page, at Talk:Targeted Killings: Law and Morality in an Asymmetrical World.
Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 04:12, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
It appears to be a growing phenomenon. There are sources for this term as well as the synonyms "double tap" and "rescuer strike". Is it worth an article or a section within an article?
A few of the many sources:
Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:38, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Terrorism in Mexico
Terrorism in Mexico should be added to this project, by somebody, who can rate this article as well. Waiting. OccultZone (talk) 06:08, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Created Category:Targeted killing
I've gone ahead and created Category:Targeted killing, a category to encompass articles related to the topic of Targeted killing.
Suggestions for additional articles to add into the category would be appreciated, feel free to add them yourself or suggest them at Category talk:Targeted killing.
— Cirt (talk) 01:58, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
"Private letter from CIA chief undercuts claim torture was key to killing Bin Laden"
Does anyone know if any article is using this source? If not, it may be useful. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:41, 11 December 2013 (UTC)