Talk:Hostage crisis

This article was nominated for deletion on 9 January 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.

Dispute[edit]

I think the decent content in this should be moved to a subsection of Hostage, and the rest removed. doopa —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doopa (talk • contribs) 17:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This page is a combination of "hostage crisis" and "hostage rescue" (which I believe is a bad idea in the first place). Butt here's the two parts:

Accuracy dispute: No sources are cited for anything. Everything appears to be speculation, and simply doesn't sound right to me.
POV dispute: Several things hint at anti-rescue bias, such as "are killed or arrested (often with loss of hostage lives) as the building is stormed by commandos; etc".

Since this article isn't exactly very long, it shouldn't be extremely hard to fix for someone more knowledgeable about the area to at least some of this. Bayerischermann 02:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the description of one strategy as "kill 'em quick" is not exactly NPOV. I think the mention of the Church of the Nativity thing needs to be worked on too. Something that touches on as sensitive an issue as Israel/Palestine is not a particularly effective way of making the general point (that a hostage crisis requires there be threat to hostages.) --Saforrest 20:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the points above, however I also believe that without a reference to a study or another credible source of evidence, it cannot be accurately stated that a "no negotiation" policy leads to a reduction in hostage situations. In the modern world, many of the terriorists involved in hostage situations are religiously motivated, believing that they will go to heaven when they die, and thus not afraid of death. 199.185.85.26 19:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC) --Stanislav B.[reply]

This page needs some serious work. A complete re-write with refernces perhaps... YEPPOON

There are four results that may occur using two factors.
1. Governments negotiate with kidnapper: Hostage(s) set free.
2. Governments negotiate with kidnapper: Hostage(s) killed anyways.
3. Governments do not negotiate with kidnapper: Hostage(s) somehow set free.
4. Governments do not negotiate with kidnapper: Hostage(s) killed.
Jonnyabc 02:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with all of the above. Take for example this quote from the article: 'it is considered a "barricaded suspect" situation'. Really? Surely not in any country that has English as a first language. Even if we ignore the grammatical aberration of this quote, the lexicon of criminology varies from country to country and the author does not say in which legal jurisdiction the term 'barricaded suspect' is used and by whom.

I know that according to Wikipedia etiquette I shouldn't really express the following viewpoint but do you ever get the feeling that many of the articles in Wikipedia have been authored by 12 year olds?

'Literate Human' 27th April 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.138.200 (talk) 18:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]