Template talk:Terrorism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

WikiProject Terrorism (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject iconThis template is within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on terrorism, 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.

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)


j  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.215.98.110 (talk) 13:51, 7 December 2014 (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)

"Most Wanted" Area Request[edit]

As previously denied, I attempted adding a "Most Wanted" area; which is in my opinion, a part of Terrorism. The Code is in development, though reverted, I am asking the community if a "Most Wanted" area should be incorporated. It includes article links such as: Saudi list of most wanted suspected terrorists Twillisjr (talk) 17:30, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

  • This would be appropriate only if you can create a set of lists of terrorists. A "most wanted list" does not suffice. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:41, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Correct, two major sets of lists that currently exist in two separate regions of the world have been added. Additional lists could be added, "if" the requirements of Interpol's "Red Notice" issuance were directly specified to be in relation to "terrorism."

ex: NIA Most Wanted in regard to Interpol Notices

Twillisjr (talk) 19:56, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

    • The problem with adding only those two lists is that of due weight. Why should the lists of Somalia and Saudi Arabia, and no other country, be listed in the template? With the country specific articles above that, in every case it is because of substantive coverage for those countries, or ideologies, or whatever. −Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:24, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

The international completedness of such articles which can be added is well noted. Perhaps it can be added when updates exist, so I will retain the argument on this talk page. Twillisjr (talk) 17:21, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Counter-jihad[edit]

I don't think counter-jihad belongs under the "Fighting terrorism" section. This template isn't about what is perceived to be an effort in fighting terrorism, but what actually is an effort in doing so. Counter-jihad appears to be mostly about immigration issues (mixed with racism and bigotry) and not seriously about fighting terrorism.VR talk 16:34, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

How is terrorism insurance fighting terrorism? Anti-communism is part of the communism series. Counter-Jihad falls in the same niche.Icewhiz (talk) 17:46, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Terrorism insurance isn't necessarily about fighting terrorism, you're right. But its a neutral topic that is actually relevant to terrorism. Counter-jihad includes not just opposition to Islamic terrorism, but also often opposition to Islam and Muslims. Unless you equate Islam or Muslims with terrorism, it is fairly obvious to see why it doesn't to a Template on terrorism.VR talk 22:35, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
I'd also be fine with removing Terrorism insurance in favor of keeping this template more focused.VR talk 22:39, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Counter-jihad, on the stated public level is not anti-Muslim, but rather against the political aspects of Islam. The terror \ jihad by muslims link is quite clear 90s onward, and counter-jihad references this by refering to jihad explicitely. Just because IDONTLIKE McCarthy or counter jihad, is not a reason to omit.Icewhiz (talk) 23:08, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
There's plenty of academic sources on Counter-jihad that show is anti-Muslim. (And I see you're trying to remove academic references for no reason on that page).VR talk 15:34, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
(I was not removing sources, but making the lead conform to being a summary of the body, more there). I do not contest this movement has been described as anri Muslim by some. Perhaps it even is. It is still a clear response, even if misguided (according to some), to the major terror source in the past 30 years - Jihadism.Icewhiz (talk) 17:54, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Do you have a source to back that assertion? Darkness Shines (talk) 18:01, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
While one could pull a Geller, Spencer, or random CJ proponet discussing terror, how about this (an anti-CJ source): [1] In the aftermath of the 9/11 and 7/7 attacks, it appeared that rightwing groups were devoting more effort in targeting public anxieties not merely over immigration and Islam but specifically the rising salience of religiously-inspired terrorism.. (and really - the whole chapter - pages 37-42 which is titled "The Rise of Extreme Right and Jihadist Radicalisation: HOW DO THEY FEED OFF EACH OTHER?").Icewhiz (talk) 18:50, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

(Out)That appears to say the extreme right use islami terrorism to incite fear among the populace, not that counter jihad began as a counter to terrorism. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:13, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I disagree, but here's another (anti-CJ source) - [2] [3] The movement’s roots can be traced back to the 1980s, though it crystallised in its modern form following the attacks on 11 September 2001.. I will note that the American wing is very much rooted in September-11 responses (and subsequent terror/violence), the European movements (EDL, etc.) - have somewhat different origins (including football hooligans). Or this source (again anti-CJ) - [4] I argue that the Counterjihad is fundamentally a product of both the 9/11 attacks on the United States and the connectivity brought about by the internet over the last Decade - and then a search of "9/11" in the book - gives a godzillion different expansions on the 9/11 side of this premise. You are also welcome to search for 2001 and terror in the views of CJM proponents here - [5]. Or this description: [6] - Counter-jihadists believe that Islamic doctrine itself is the root of the terrorism problem; they have proposed incredibly aggressive steps including shutting down roughly 80 percent of mosques in the United States.. I could go on and on digging sources - but Counter-Jihad's root as a response, and a supposed cure, to terrorism is quite clear (and evidenced by the name itself). Very much so on the American side (where Eurobia / Islamization / etc. - is not the main focus - but rather fear of terror).Icewhiz (talk) 19:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Just because something happened after the 9/11 terrorist attacks doesn't mean it was a response to terrorism. For example, Islamophobic incidents in the United States spiked after the 9/11 attacks. Doesn't mean we should link to them in this template as a "Response to terrorism". Many of those Islamophobes who attack innocent Muslims believe that their action is a response to terrorism.VR talk 22:37, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
One of the stated aims of Counter-Jihad is to counter the supposed (by them) Jihad of Muslims against the west - as manifested (per them) by terror attacks against the west, such as 9/11. This is a very clear connection - right in the title of the movement. The movement mostly started as a direct response to 9/11 2001 (and pre-cursor roots in the 1980s (back when it wasn't called this way) were in response to the Iranian Islamic revolution (and the hostage taking of American diplomats), Islamic terror in Lebanon (particularly Hezbollah and other groups aligned with the Islamic Republic) against Western targets - e.g. 1983 Beirut barracks bombings and Lebanon hostage crisis), after that pre-cursor AQ as well the rise of Palestinian Islamist terror (prior to the late 1980s - the main Palestinian factions weren't Islamist but pan-Arab or red (e.g. PFLP). Hamas and Islamic Jihad Movement in Palestine gained traction in the late 80s). Islamophobia, in contrast, is a wider phenomena not necessarily directed towards Jihad, and possible with roots that go much farther back.Icewhiz (talk) 05:58, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Again, so does Islamophobia. Many, if not most, Islamophobes equate Islam to terrorism. So, for example, this fella believed he was attacking a terrorist when he assaulted a Muslim teen. So is assaulting a Muslim teen a "response to terrorism"? Is it "fighting terrorism"? Please answer my questions.
The point is, just because you think you are fighting against terrorism doesn't mean you actually are. Including counter-jihad in this template can even be construed as a tacit endorsement of the counter-jihad POV.VR talk 17:18, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
No more than listing homeopathy (which in personal view is outright quakery, though with a placebo affect) as a possible alternative treatment method.Icewhiz (talk) 17:37, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Huh? Are you referring to "Template:Alternative medicine sidebar". That one clearly lists homeopathy under the "Fringe medicine" title. We don't seem to be listing counter-jihad under a "Far-right extremist response to terrorism". In any case, that template is irrelevant to our discussion here.VR talk 06:06, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
It also seems counter-jihad material (or instruction by counter-jihad proponents) has been provided to local and federal law enforcement and justice in a counter-terrorism context: [7] [8] (seems like this is even tracked by pro-muslim groups - [9] ). [10] [11] (an Obama era purge seems to have cut some of this out of the FBI) [12].Icewhiz (talk) 11:12, 8 June 2017 (UTC)