Template talk:Campaignbox Russia terrorism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Russia / History / Military / Politics and law (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject iconThis template is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia.
To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This template is supported by the history of Russia task force.
Taskforce icon
This template is supported by the Russian, Soviet, and CIS military history task force.
Taskforce icon
This template is supported by the politics and law of Russia task force.

Red Square bomb was actually a minor incident. --HanzoHattori 18:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Full(?) list[edit]

Kaspiysk – Moscow hostage crisis  – Tushino – Mozdok – Stavropol train – Red Square – Moscow metro – Aircraft bombings – Beslan hostage crisis —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HanzoHattori (talkcontribs) 16:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

I don't really know why you've merged suicide attacks with terrorist attacks. Although suicide bombing is an unorthodox combat style, it doesn't become terrorism until civilians are targeted. Suicide bombing happened in the Jap-USA war and the Vietnam War as well. I'ts important to distinguish terrorism from normal/controversial insurgency. If you want a box for suicide we can make another one I guess. - PietervHuis (talk) 20:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason why to do that. I didnt' merge them header clearly says both are listed. Two boxes would make a confusion.--TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

One box makes confusion! Why are you relating suicide attacks with terrorist attacks? They are two completely different things. You're the one who changed the header, it used to be just terrorist attacks. - PietervHuis (talk) 18:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Suicide attacks of the chechen war have their own section. Chechen suicide attacks, as you can see there are a lot more than the two currently in the box. That's why it's best to create two boxes I think, or just keep 1. - PietervHuis (talk) 18:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Feargod, please don't turn this infobox into something it's not. This is a list of terrorist attacks and terrorist attacks and suicide attacks are not one and the same thing. The infobox was fine the way it was.ForrestSjap (talk) 18:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
well he didn't change it recently, a while ago. - PietervHuis (talk) 18:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

1977 Moscow bombings were not "islamist" by any accounts. Same about many other incidents, especially in Soviet times.Biophys (talk) 19:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Include People's Will here? Biophys (talk) 19:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

hey..Russia (the 1991-present one)! --DAI (Δ) 21:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Please look at History of Russia.Biophys (talk)
  • May be should create another template, "Russian terrorism" or "Terrorism in Russia" that covers whole Russian history? Biophys (talk) 23:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
you can always do that but first create articles or a list of attacks.--DAI (Δ) 10:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Use of "Terrorist"[edit]

There are huge controversies (published in books) if the Bombing of Nevsky Express, Kaspiysk bombing and Russian apartment bombings were in fact committed by insurgents. But all of them are undeniably terrorist attacks. So, please do not replace "terrorist" by "insurgent". This has nothing to do with WP:Terrorist. Biophys (talk) 03:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to the talk page.
The guideline states that labelling people/groups/events as "terrorism" is taking a non-neutral point-of-view. It advises that people/groups/events should only be called "terrorist" in the body of an article when quoting a source.
For example:

Person X described Event X as a "terrorist attack".


Event X was a terrorist attack.

If we title a campaignbox "terrorist attacks" we are labelling everything in that campaignbox as "terrorist". We should either use a different title, merge this campaignbox with another, or move all the articles to separate campaignboxes.
~Asarlaí 09:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
an insurgent is someone making ambushes on soldiers and planting IEDs on soldiers paths. A terrorist puts bombs on tracks or blows him(her)self up in a crowded place. That's a big difference.--DAI (Δ) 12:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
please finish the discussion then change--DAI (Δ) 12:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Re to DAI: Yes, I fully agree. The "terrorist" and "insurgent" are actually different things. Re to Asarlaí: Everything in this box is "terrorism" according to my best knowledge. If something is not, let's remove it.Biophys (talk) 12:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
DAI: That's you deciding what counts as "terrorism", which goes against WP:TERRORIST and WP:POV.
no, that's sources in those articles deciding--DAI (Δ) 20:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Biophys: "According to my best knowledge" isn't good enough for Wikipedia. For every single article, we need reliable sources that call it "terrorism". Otherwise we're going against WP:TERRORIST and WP:POV.
~Asarlaí 15:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but you are wrong. The 2006 Moscow market bombing belongs here just as well, being more deadly than at least the Moscow metro bombing II, Vladikavkaz bombing and 2010 Kizlyar bombings, and insurgents had nothing to do with it. As to WP:TERRORIST, we don't label certain people as terrorists, we just call certain attacks acts of terrorism, which is not prohibited. Go to WP:AN/I if in doubt. Colchicum (talk) 16:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

we just call certain attacks acts of terrorism, which is not prohibited

No, Wikipedia does not allow editors to go around labelling anything they want as "terrorism". There must be reliable sources to back it up. ~Asarlaí 17:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
How do you know? It is not in the policies. Anyway, Spas are not insurgents. Colchicum (talk) 17:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Obviously. Furthermore, each event in this template was described as a "terrorism act" in numerous sources quoted in the corresponding articles.Biophys (talk) 18:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Merge proposal[edit]

I propose we merge this template with Template:Campaignbox Second Chechen War civilian attacks and have it cover all attacks on civilians relating to the Chechnya-North Caucasus conflict. Here's an example of the proposed template:

Thoughts? ~Asarlaí 00:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

There are problems. There is no such thing as "Chechnya-North Caucasus conflict" according to sources. This is OR. This templates arbitrary combines events that had happened during First Chechen war, between the wars (Apartment bombings) and long after the Second war (2010). No, that's not a good idea.Biophys (talk) 03:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
But the current template combines events that happened during and after the two wars. Why is it wrong to include attacks (allegedly) committed by both sides? Also, if we use that logic, then surely these attacks should be moved into the templates for the war in which they happened?
As for the title, that's just a proposal. It can be changed. It's obvious that these conflicts (First Chechen War, Invasion of Dagestan, Second Chechen War and North Caucasus insurgency) are linked, so I don't see how having all the attacks on one template is arbitrary. What other title would you propose? ~Asarlaí 08:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree that calling it the North Caucasus conflict is OR. An arbitrary list of attacks is ok to me. Now, Superfopp, you want to have Russian artillery strikes and Chechen suicide bombings together??--DAI (Δ) 12:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I upgraded the list markup, but otherwise left it alone. Frietjes (talk) 23:44, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Red links[edit]

This is a navigation template. Red links should not be added, this looks particularly awful, especially with such high-profile main page articles using this template. If anyone is interested in adding new attacks to the template, I suggest a new article is written for each. The current consensus, as demonstrated, is that only links with articles are added. Plus, without articles, there's no evidence at all that any of these red linked attacks exist. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:13, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean as demonstrated? The only demonstration that took place is of your willingness to perpetually revert my additions of attacks that had 4+ casualties.
I'd like to invite all editors of this navibox to weigh on this issue in order to gain consensus to add all attacks with 4+ casualties, not only those that have their all links (here are post 2004 attacks, source). Not to mentioned that the good Rambling Man made just general revert throwing away also added BLUE LINKS (I won't waste my time adding them back just to have them removed for some other made up reason).
I reject argument "it looks particularly awful". Wikipedia is not a beauty parlor, it is about informative value. Having the redlinks there gives the reader much better overview of how often terrorist attacks take place in Russia, moreover it may move other wikipedians to do something about that. +Cimmerian praetor (talk) 16:19, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
None of the attacks exist as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Write some articles instead of edit warring over campaign boxes. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:25, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


Please can we have a discussion, there has been a recent change to the title in the campaign box. Before we start changing high profile campaign boxes without consensus, can we discuss first, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:25, 30 December 2013 (UTC)