Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography/Terrorism task force/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

RfC of interest at Operation Entebbe

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)

Expanded scope

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)

Renew article

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)

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)

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)

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)

Martyrdom video

Please add some eyeballs onto Talk:Martyrdom video, rev history of "Martyrdom video". Staszek Lem (talk) 16:04, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Merge comment requested about Stairwell A

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)

2012 Aurora shooting

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)

Is the Bat Ayin ax attack notable enough to be included in Wikipedia?

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)

Request for comment at ANI

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

Not to be confused with Ansar ash-Shari'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)

What types of attacks should be included in the template Terrorist attacks against Israelis in the 2000s?

Please participate in this discussion and share your opinion on the matter. Thanks. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 16:46, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Operation Entebbe

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)

Nomination of Religious terrorism for deletion

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)

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)

school stabbing?

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) -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 06:12, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Project AfD

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Economic terrorism. Thanks. Borock (talk) 06:05, 31 January 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 -- 70.24.250.103 (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 -- 70.24.250.103 (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? -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 05:17, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The-tsarnaev-suspects-fbi-photo-release.jpg

image:The-tsarnaev-suspects-fbi-photo-release.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 04:25, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Suspect1and2.jpg

image:Suspect1and2.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.250.103 (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 -- 65.94.76.126 (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 -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 05:48, 15 May 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 -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 06:37, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Glenane.jpg

image:Glenane.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (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)

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.

Cheers,

— Cirt (talk) 01:58, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Terrorist categories by country and in fiction

Is Category:Individuals designated as terrorist by the United Kingdom government an appropriate category? There is a similarly named category for U.S. designated terrorists. My additions to category fictional terrorists are being reverted; even though several fictional characters are referred to as terrorists by fictional government; which seems to be the only definition. CensoredScribe (talk) 05:56, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Fictional terrorists has been deleted for 4 years. CensoredScribe has a long history of making inappropriate categories.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:40, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Bundy militia

Bundy militia article has many cites and describes the notable group who mounted an armed conflict in Nevada, USA. They used assault rifles, handguns, and knives to threaten the public while stopping traffic on the Interstate 15 highway, set up sniper positions, and wielded weapons against US Federal Government law enforcement officers. They have been labeled terrorists by high US Government officials. Baleywik (talk) 02:34, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bundy militia is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Baleywik (talk) 02:38, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Report: This article was deleted after the AfD process was corrupted. AfD consensus was mixed, but the result was a redirect into Bundy standoff. Unfortunately, most of the notable parts of the Bundy militia article were deleted by an editor during the AfD process, in which the reference citations, the entire article structure, and all of the infobox was blanked. Peer review for this project, as well as genuine AfD review was rendered impossible due to the edit war. Wikipedia has lost the article. Baleywik (talk) 23:42, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
I am concerned with the accusation the the process was corrupted. Here is the discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bundy militia. Baleywik could you point out where you believe the problem you mention is here? Thanks!--Maleko Mela (talk) 00:07, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

RfD for Global Jihad

I proposed to retarget from al-Qaeda to Global jihad (disambiguation). Discuss here.~Technophant (talk) 07:57, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:War in Afghanistan (2001–14)#Propose merger

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:War in Afghanistan (2001–14)#Propose merger. Thanks. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:38, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 March 21#Category:War in Afghanistan (2001–14)

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 March 21#Category:War in Afghanistan (2001–14). Thanks. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:29, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

AfD: Christian terrorism

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian terrorism (2nd nomination)‎ may be of interest - unsure why this project wasn't notified. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:40, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Article

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)

Nomination of Genocide definitions, Definitions of pogrom and Definitions of fascism for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Genocide definitions, Definitions of pogrom and Definitions of fascism are 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/Genocide definitions 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 notice from the top of the article. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

List of designated terrorist organizations listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for List of designated terrorist organizations to be moved to List of designated terrorist groups. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 22:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant to be moved to Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:00, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Insurgency in the Maghreb (2002–present) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Insurgency in the Maghreb (2002–present) to be moved to List of Conflicts and Terrorist Incidents in the Sahara and Sahel. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:01, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Iraqi insurgency (2011–present) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Iraqi insurgency (2011–present) to be moved to Iraq War (2011-present). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:17, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Boston Marathon bombings listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Boston Marathon bombings to be moved to Boston Marathon bombing. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:18, 28 May 2015 (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)

Jundallah

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)

Khalid Ali-M Aldawsari

See [1]

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)

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)

Request feedback

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)

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)

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)

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. 24.11.87.186 (talk) 20:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Sambhaji Brigade

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Dutch government analysis on terrorism on the internet

I found

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)

Rescuer attack

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)

"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)

Terrorism at Winter Olympics

Hi, can anyone more familiar with the region/situation please help at Talk:2014_Winter_Olympics#jihadist.3F? Specifically the article alludes to a jihadist group, but then doesn't really explain if they really are one as far as i can tell. Sportfan5000 (talk) 02:41, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

2012 Benghazi attack

A discussion has begun in order to gain a consensus on whether to include or exclude material involving the CIA and weapons smuggling in the article. Please weigh in on the discussion at the talk page. This may also be a good time to reassess the rating on the article. Thank you.--Maleko Mela (talk) 22:03, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Counter-Terrorism Act of 1995

Has anyone thought of starting Counter-Terrorism Act of 1995?

I found some resources here: "Counter-Terrorism Act of 1995" (Archive) - Center for Democracy and Technology - Updated August 5, 1996 WhisperToMe (talk) 16:36, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant‎ (ISIS)

Probably would benefit from at least being on the watchlist of some members of this project. Dougweller (talk) 15:38, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Master's thesis

Do you think this thesis may be useful in an article? WhisperToMe (talk) 19:08, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Expert attention

This is a notice about Category:Terrorism articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. It will take a while before the category is populated. Iceblock (talk) 03:20, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Review of a three month move moratorium for Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

Since a three months requested move moratorium came into effect on the page Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, a few editors have complained that there is no consensus for the moratorium, so I have initiated an RfC to see if there is a consensus to end the moratorium with the closing of the RfC. See:

-- PBS (talk) 11:34, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Syrian Civil War

I feel a crying need to start WP:WikiProject Syrian Civil War due the exponential growth of interest and article activity related to the conflict in the region. I think we need a place to keep track of all the newly created and discussions related to these topics. Article talk pages have become the de facto means to talk these inter-related issues, however the number of new pages is growing exponentially . I do think that both the Syrian Civil War and ISIL should be included as a in the same project. Sincerely, Technophant (talk) 06:19, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Samantha Lewthwaite

Russia's Regnum news agency is this evening reporting the death of Samantha Lewthwaite in Ukraine, according to This from Kenya's The Standard. Someone has already added details of the alleged incident to her biography, quoting Regnum as the source. It probably needs reverting until reports of her death are either confirmed or found to be untrue, and could do with a few people from here adding it to their watchlists as I suspect there'll be a flurry of news reports about this when the various outlets pick the story up. Thanks, This is Paul (talk) 19:17, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Acronyms of groups with al-Qaeda in name

I personally had made the stylistic decision to use "Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI)" instead of "al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI)" in the ISIL and the newly split Al-Qaeda in Iraq article. Other editors in the article agreed to this as well. I do understand that the word "al" means "the" and usually isn't capitalized and that there is a consensus decision made in on Talk:al-Qaeda to use this format site-wide. I see other articles (al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), al-Qaeda in the Indian Subcontinent (AQIS)) have chosen not to capitalize the "al-". It's standard in English to capitalize all letters in an acronym, and I think this standard should override the preference not to capitalize "al-".

The Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Abbreviations doesn't have much guidance except to say "If a guideline conflicts with the correct usage of a proper name, ignore it." Capitalization of proper names should go with the most common use in reliable sources, not Wikipedians' preferences. I hope we can come to an agreement on how to do this.~Technophant (talk) 17:37, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Why not just move the articles to "Al-"? It serves no purpose at all to have article titles beginning with lower case. Our articles on cats and dogs are at Cat and Dog. Rothorpe (talk) 23:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
The article is already capitalized per MediaWiki software. The issue here is whether to use {{lowercase title}} to make it look lowercase, and then stick to that throughout all the articles, so that we don't get Al-Qaeda and al-Qaeda randomly, which would look unprofessional. hbdragon88 (talk) 05:15, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Clicking on your link shows it's for commercial caprices like eBay and iPad. So let's have all the al- articles displaying as Al-. That's what looks right. Of course they will be written as 'al-' in running prose, acronyms with A. Rothorpe (talk) 16:25, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't think it is a requirement or standard that the capitalization in a phrase correspond to its acronym. The capitalization in the al-Qaeda articles should follow the standard of not capitalizing al-, except at the start of sentences. Whether or not this also applies to article titles is uncertain.--Axiom292 (talk) 22:49, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I think that the main requirement is standardisation at an article level or perhaps, in the case of large articles, at an article section level. I had been all ready to support the lower case option but then had a look at site:www.aljazeera.net/ "al qaeda". They don't have standardisation and yet are respected. However journalists presumably keep things consistent in each article. However, if it comes to a vote then I would side with consistent capitalisation. It also seems to be the default option presented at http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/11873/al . Failing that I think it should generally be considered to be unhelpful if an editor comes to an article that uses one case and starts to edit in another. Gregkaye ✍♪ 21:05, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Handle this issue as if al were replaced with the. If we were using the translated name the Base to refer to al-Qaeda, would we call the article the Base or The Base? Clearly, it would be the latter, because even though the t in the is not normally capitalised, it is capitalised at the beginning of a sentence. So should be the case for al-Qaeda. For an example on how this is currently done in other articles, take a look at The Beatles, where the t in the is not capitalised except at the beginning of sentences, even though it is part of the name. That there is an acronym for the name of the group that includes the definite article should have no bearing on its capitalisation; an acronym can be made up for any multi-word title. There may even be multiple acronyms, as in the case of Isis (Isil, IS) and al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI, TQJBR, the latter based on the fully transliterated name of the group).
TL;DR: Treat it like the. Capitalise at the start of sentence. Lowercase otherwise.
--Joshua Issac (talk) 21:37, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Editors ever thought of coming to a consensus on this, after two months of discussion? The confusion on the spelling is showing in articles, which have contradictions in them. Inconsistencies like these are just the sort of thing that gives Wikipedia a bad name. What would you think of a newspaper that spelled names in different ways in the same article? ~ P-123 (talk) 17:28, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

RfC, Are terrorist and terrorism relevant designators when actions are conducted within territory controlled by a group?

When a group gains territorial control of an area and commits an atrocity, is this best defined as terrorism or something else? Please feel free to speculate on potential motivations of groups such as intimidation and coercion of local populations and intimidation to the point of educing terror amongst surrounding groups.

This relates to a related discussion at Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant but which has significant differences to the content of this discussion. I think that this is a valid question to ask independence of editors involved on the ISIL page but would be happy to place notification on that page if considered relevant. See: WP:FORUMSHOP Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

  • If the sources call it terrorism it is terrorism. This lays out a question that seems alot like Original research. This could b spun over in a discussion of the USA and the American revolutionary war easily.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:24, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:2009 Fort Hood shooting#Removal of verified content

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:2009 Fort Hood shooting#Removal of verified content. Thanks. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:TERRORIST

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)
It seems many users are attempting to circumvent WP:TERRORIST by using the term in category and article names rather than in the bodies of articles. Gob Lofa (talk) 15:15, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Southern California terrorist plot

Does it meet WP:EVENT? It definitely meets WP:GNG IMHO; see this with coverage extending at least into last year.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:28, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Ali Muhammad Brown disruptively tagged

An editor with interests in political Islam has unjustifiably flagged Ali Muhammad Brown Subject is notable because story was covered over decades by several Seattle and New Jersey mainstream news sources as well as national CNN for a conviction for a terrorist fraud scheme, and series of murders, including murders of 2 LGBT men on the west and east coast, and widely cited as likely example of Islamist terrorism. Editor is questioning reliability of Seattle and New Jersey and CNN media, and claiming it is original research when it is backed up by multiple reliable sources. Bachcell (talk) 14:32, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Al-Qaeda in Bosnia and Herzegovina

I've just spotted that an Al-Qaeda in Bosnia and Herzegovina article was recently created. Could someone with knowledge of the subject take a look, as it doesn't read as particularly NPOV to me. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:12, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

2015 Qatif mosque bombing and Dammam Mosque bomb blast

I am in need of an advice: There were 2 suicide bomb blasts in Saudi Arabia First on 22 and second on 29 May, 2015, ISIS has accepted the responsibility of both the suicide attacks. For First attack there is a page 2015 Qatif mosque bombing. I have created a section for second attack that is “Dammam Mosque bomb blast”.

  • whether it is ok or not.
  • Or there should be two separate pages

Expert opion(s) are requested. Nannadeem (talk) 20:38, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Al-Awda

The usage and primary topic of Al-Awda is under discussion, see talk:The Return (guerrilla organization) -- 70.51.202.183 (talk) 05:24, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

United States and state-sponsored terrorism

Needs more eyes. It has been added a lot of possibly POV content and sourced materials has been deleted with no reason. Rupert Loup (talk) 20:02, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Can we get consistent naming for the categories of terrorist organizations?

The parent "Category:Organizations designated as terrorist by designator" has nine subcategories in the format "Category:Government of Canada designated terrorist organizations". At a bare minimum, these should use hyphenation for the compound modifier ("Government of Canada" modifies "designated", not "terrorist organizations"; "Government of Canada-designated" would modify "terrorist organizations"). Better yet, rearrange this to match the style of the parent category: "Organizations designated as terrorist by Canada" or "Organizations designated as terrorist by the government of Canada". I can see no reason to use "the government of" for some countries but not others. Then the only variation among all these would be "Organizations/Organisations". Chris the speller yack 19:43, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:2015 Ramadan attacks

There is an ongoing RM discussion. Comment there for consensus. --George Ho (talk) 18:03, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Category discussion

I've raised a discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 August 21#Input Wanted on Category:Islamists by nationality. Contributions welcome. GregKaye 17:06, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Help improving an article

Recently I was looking around for older articles of mine to improve and looked again at 1987 Zaragoza Barracks bombing. I was a little surprised to see that it had only been marked as start class. The criteria for that say that that means it likely has unencyclopedic prose, non-compliance with MOS and inadequate referencing. I don't believe that any of those apply in this case, the article for example is fully referenced to multiple reliable sources. However, I'm biased as the article creator and would appreciate if someone could take a look and give me some pointers on how to improve it. Valenciano (talk) 16:31, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Category:Organizations designated as terrorist

This category's headnote says "organizations should be included in specific sub-categories only, never in this parent category" (and has for a number of years - this isn't a recent change). Yet 124 articles, as well as a number of subcats named for organizations (rather than subcats "Orgs designated as terrorist by the US, by Egypt, etc.", I mean) have been placed in it directly. What's the wikiproject's opinion on this - remove the headnote, or subcat the articles? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:29, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Salafia Jihadia

I have expanded this page a little re its connection to the 2003 Casablanca bombings. I came across a user-space draft at User:Lv06042011/Sandbox which might be used to greatly expand the Salafia Jihadia page. 220 of Borg 18:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:United Kingdom Home Office designated terrorist groups

Category:United Kingdom Home Office designated terrorist groups has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. AusLondonder (talk) 05:41, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Request for comment at Talk:Rafik Yousef#Request for comment regarding categorisation

I initiated at request for comment at Talk:Rafik Yousef#Request for comment regarding categorisation on the 12th of February but am yet to receive any replied. So input would be most welcome. AusLondonder (talk) 16:12, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Terrorism and NPOV guidelines

I've noticed that wp:Terrorist is not adhered to in some of the more publicised events. E.g. 9/11 and November Paris attacks. What are peoples thoughts on this? I'm of the opinion that 'terrorism' should not be used in wiki-voice, which is how I interpret the spirit, if not the letter, of needing attribution as stated within the Terrorist policy. I.e. I see a difference in neutrality between 'X is terrorism' and 'X is described as terrorism'. However, I'd like to get a gauge on other peoples thoughts on this matter. Hollth (talk) 02:48, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Ask yourself what term "is seen in the predominance of reliable English-language sources". In those two particular cases I think you are likely to find that "terrorist" is vastly more common than "martyr" or even "attacker". We are not here to lead common usage but to follow it. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:37, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Aside from disagreeing that 'terrorist' is more common than 'attacker' (at least for Paris), I don't see how it follows that by virtue of a particular term being in RS more it should be included without attribution/in wiki voice. We, not the media, have the burden on neutrality. When there is choice between a neutral term and an loaded term, we should be going for the latter regardless of what the RS say. Hollth (talk) 04:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, not quite. We should neutrally reflect the colour of the collected RS sources. That is different from inventing our own "neutral" usage, which would be a type of wp:OR at best, and could even be a POV push. In both your prominent examples there is little if any credible doubt that the acts were intended to produce terror. I see no difficulty with calling them terrorism, though. Neither the WTC nor the theatre could credibly regarded as being of strategic value to any combatant group, no matter how one looks at it. Those events meet the most stringent definition for terrorism that one might find, not to mention all the looser ones that are commonly used. To avoid the term essentially implies that WP regards the acts as legitimate albeit irregular combat. Yes we should consider its use carefully. That does not mean that we should bend reality in order to avoid using the term where it clearly applies. LeadSongDog come howl! 22:07, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Merger discussion for January 2016 Paris police station attack

An article that you have been involved in editing—January 2016 Paris police station attack —has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. AusLondonder (talk) 08:17, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

RfC

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:2016 Orlando nightclub shooting#RfC: Should the lead mention that the majority of victims were Hispanic, and should the lead mention that Pulse was hosting a Latin night?. - MrX 13:58, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Another

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_July_13#Category:Terrorism_by_year FYI JarrahTree 00:12, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Syed Hamid Hussain

We have an article about Syed Hamid Hussain, who was involved in the Bacha Khan University attack. I proposed a merge request on the attack talk page if anyone is interested or a RfC on Hussain's article talk page about his significance in the event and thus whether the article should be merged. I'm sure some of the folk here have come across plenty of these discussions before and might offer some decent insight. Thanks, Jolly Ω Janner 03:23, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Jolly Janner, is this merge request still 'active' or has it been settled? I noted an IP removed the template in August without giving a reason, so I restored it. 220 of Borg 13:40, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

RFC at SIG MCX re: Orlando shooting

Talk:SIG MCX# RFC: Is the Orlando shooting relevant? Please post on that page if you have a comment. Felsic2 (talk) 20:14, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

This RFC covers two automotive articles with similar disputed material.

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles#Request for Comment: Inclusion of vehicle use in crimes as part of vehicle articles. Felsic2 (talk) 00:43, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Fiction

Is fiction about terrorism of interest to this WikiProject? Jim Michael (talk) 12:27, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Islamist Terrorist attacks RfC

There is a discussion ongoing at List of Islamist terrorist attacks on whether to add the July 2016 Nice attack to the list. This wikiproject is listed on the talk page as an interested group. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:10, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Requested move notice

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:2016 Yerevan hostage crisis#Requested move 17 November 2016, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, JudgeRM (talk to me) 18:05, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Fake news website - move discussion

Article is Fake news website.

Requested move discussion at: Talk:Fake_news_website#Requested_move_7_December_2016. Sagecandor (talk) 13:11, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Requested move notice

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Jabhat Fateh al-Sham#Requested move 29 January 2016, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, SkyWarrior 17:57, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Terrorist incidents involving trains

A discussion is currently taking place at WT:TWP which members of this WikiProject may wish to contribute to. It is about the addition of terrorist incidents involving trains to railway accident navboxes. Mjroots (talk) 13:49, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

M62 coach bombing

An editor is 3RR removing the category Category:Terrorist incidents in the United Kingdom in 1974 from M62 coach bombing as "NPOV". Comments welcome at Talk: Andy Dingley (talk) 21:17, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Actually they seem to be stripping this from all IRA related articles, see Special:Contributions/Apollo_The_Logician Andy Dingley (talk) 21:18, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
And User:Apollo The Logician shows a very clear POV problem. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:23, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
You 2RR'd so whats your point? Not just NPOV but WP:LABEL as well. Yes I also rmeoved all other terorist cats added to IRA related article today as well, whats your point? I also dont see how a bombing where soldiers were killed and civilians were accidently killed qualifies as terrorist, what next? Do we label Obama a terrorist becuase the US have accidently bombed civilians?Apollo The Logician (talk) 21:28, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
You've removed "terrorism" from all of these. Catch yourself on.
Andy Dingley (talk) 21:33, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
I know. I was specifically referencing the M62 coach bombing. We can go through them one by one if you like. EDIT: Just in case I am confused about what you are talking about terrorism cats were all added to those pages today. Apollo The Logician (talk) 21:39, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
You are claiming that the Guildford pub bombings were not a terrorist incident. Your user page advertises just how much of a fixed POV you already have. The problem here is obvious. Your only editing of these articles should be under WP:COI, certainly not reverting against other editors. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
I dont see how killing soldiers could be considered terrorist but per WP:LABEL the label must be widespread. Also you are allowed to have a strong pov just as long as it doesnt interfere with ones edits. Maybe you should take a look in the mirror.Apollo The Logician (talk) 21:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Being an apologist for terrorists doesn't stop them being terrorists. Any objective definition of terrorism that you care to pick, the IRA bombing campaigns of the '70s meet it. Or do you simply believe that terrorism never exists, and that it's all simply the international class struggle and a manifestation of historical materialism? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:18, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Well terrorism is used in wonky ways and doesnt seem to have a concrete definition but I dont see how killing soldiers meets any of the definitions of terrorism. Something can not be a terrorist attack and still be unethical. And again [[WP:LABEL] says the label must be widespread. Do you have any evidence that it is?Apollo The Logician (talk) 09:22, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Your very obvious party line here isn't something I'm likely to talk you out of, nor your claim that innocent civilian deaths in a civilian target are merely collateral damage in a war between military forces. But not even the PIRA took that line with the Birmingham pub bombings, three bombs seen afterwards as so reprehensible that they disowned their own action and still haven't admitted to it. And as to whether it's somehow a novelty to describe any of these as terrorism, then you're just parroting one particular extremist Republican viewpoint. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:13, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
(ec) Seriously? Read any of the histories of the Troubles. These terrorist attacks are all widely labelled as such. If "I dont see how killing soldiers meets any of the definitions of terrorism" then please just stop editing terrorism and Troubles-related articles, as you're clearly not objective. (Hint: setting of a bomb on a bus on a motorway, thereby showing no regard for the lives of any civilians, is clearly a terrorist attack and it's called that by multiple independent sources. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:15, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I've restored the terrorism categories to all of the above articles. They were properly included per WP:V and WP:RS and have longstanding consensus for inclusion. Please gain consensus here before removing them again. You are now also aware that there is a 1RR restriction on Troubles-related articles. Remove these again without consensus and you will be reported. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:25, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Bastun, I was about to restore them myself. Apollo is already well aware of 1RR in regards to Troubles articles and edits so they intentionally breached it regardless. Mabuska (talk) 13:22, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Category for articles about terrorist attacks which list victims' names

If enough articles like this existed, what would be an appropriate name for it? Examples:

  1. Dolphinarium_discotheque_massacre#Fatalities
  2. 2016_Orlando_nightclub_shooting#List_of_the_dead

Not sure if there are others.

A broader category including all massacres, not just terrorist massacres, might be better, but I don't know if there is a massacres wiki project.

Broader still could be any article about mass deaths which identifies victims by name. Then we could include stuff like passenger list of the HMS Titanic. ScratchMarshall (talk) 06:04, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of The Plot to Hack America for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Plot to Hack America 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/The Plot to Hack America 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 notice from the top of the article. Sagecandor (talk) 20:40, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Babbar Khalsa

Our articles relating to terrorist organisations are obviously highly contentious. We clearly don't want to portray terrorists in a positive light. But I'm wondering whether any more experienced editors in this area think our article Babbar Khalsa is unduly POVish? Particularly the first few paragraphs? AusLondonder (talk) 04:28, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

2017 Portland train attack

Should the WikiProject Terrorism banner be added to the 2017 Portland train attack talk page? ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:02, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Inclusion of "Great Mosque of al-Nuri (Mosul)" in 2017 under discussion

Hello. The inclusion of "Great Mosque of al-Nuri (Mosul)" is debated at Talk:2017#Al-Nuri Mosque in Mosul, where I invite you to join in. --George Ho (talk) 00:12, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

RfC discussion on May/June events at Talk:2017

There is an RfC discussion on which event that occurred in May/June 2017 to include or exclude (Talk:2017#RfC: Events in May and June 2017). Join in discussion. --George Ho (talk) 06:32, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Proposal to revive and rename Wikipedia:WikiProject Disaster management

The proposal to revive the WikiProject occurs at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disaster management#Project reboot & project rename to WikiProject Emergency management, where I invite you to comment. --George Ho (talk) 15:16, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Quality of list articles

I just looked at a few of the articles in the "List of terrorist incidents in [month] 2017" series and looked for entries listed as having occurred in the UK. I removed several of the entries as simply not verifiable as being related to terrorism at all. I suspect the problem isn't just for UK entries and not just in the 2017 lists. Are inclusion criteria specified anywhere? I wonder what the quality checking regime is here - do members of this project ever check or review the quality of the articles being build in their name? -- DeFacto (talk). 21:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

The lists are a mess and the criteria differ between lists. That's why User:EvergreenFir and I have posted this: WP:VPP#Proposal regarding WP:OR and terrorism. Doug Weller talk 15:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Failed terrorism plots

Stumbled into this old, inferior article. Perhaps it should be converted into a proper list?E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:58, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Category groupings

I would like to know if we have or could make categories reflecting individuals who have been accused of terrorism by notable sources, with a subcategory of those who have been formally charged with terrorism.

The latter would appear to be a good parent category to consolidate these three:

Presumably "imprisoned" is a subcategory of "convicted" which I'm going to go and make, while convicted/wanted would be subcategory of "charged". Do we have one for exoneration? ScratchMarshall (talk) 22:54, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.

A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/topic_points.py?banner=WikiProject_Terrorism

Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.— Rod talk 19:03, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

RM notice at Islamic terrorism

The discussion can be found here:

--K.e.coffman (talk) 00:07, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Terrorist?

Can someone please point me to discussion about when it is appropriate to include individuals in this Wikiproject? I am asking because we usually avoid using the label terrorist in articles per WP:TERRORIST — I am sure there are many articles legitimately included here involving anti-terrorism laws, the history of terrorist tactics and definitional issues — but I am confused about the projects stated purpose of collecting specific organizations and individuals under this Wikiproject? I thought WP:TERRORIST reflected a community consensus on how this issue is handled? Seraphim System (talk) 22:12, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   07:58, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Category:Armenian terrorist groups

Please see the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 June 17 to merge Category:Armenian terrorist groups. – Fayenatic London 09:32, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Is WikiProject Terrorism interested in EOKA?

Should I place a template of the wikiproject in the Talk Page? Do you think EOKA is within the scope of this project?

EOKA was a guerilla organization that acted in Cyprus from 1955-60. As it attacked civilians (alleged traitors) it was described as a terrorist group by authorities. Plus, it is widely considered as a terrorist group in Turkey. Many scholars described EOKA as a terrorist group. See ref 43 of this version.

Placing a template such as Wikiproject Terrorism might initiate fury among pro-Greek users. In Greece and the greek cypriot part of Cyprus (Republic of Cyprus), EOKA is constantly glorified. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 09:52, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Podujevo bus_bombing

Some additional input at Talk:Terrorism_in_Europe#Podujevo_bus_bombing would be valuable to help move the discussion on. Bondegezou (talk) 21:36, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

October 2018 incidents?

I have started 3 redirects, due to these events having a Death Toll more than 10, I have a doubt when are they going to have articles on their own or I should be continuing to create more redirects. Your thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheldybett (talk • contribs) 13:02, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Ori_Ansbacher

[2] is a french article on a Jerusalem terrorist attack that is not yet mentioned on english wikipedia. It should be added to current events for the date of the attack, as well list of terrorist attacks for February 2019 Bachcell (talk) 19:15, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Ori Anbacher (1999 where 2000- February 7 , 2019, Jerusalem ) is an Israeli woman , aged 19, murdered in an act of terrorism in Jerusalem . His assassination is causing national turmoil in Israel . She is the daughter of the rabbi of Tekoa and the granddaughter of Léo Ansbacher , rabbi of German origin , deported from Brussels , Belgium to France , prisoner of war , first at the Camp of Saint-Cyprien ( Pyrénées-Orientales ) and then at Gurs ( Basses-Pyrénées ) camp , during theWorld War II , where as a rabbi he animates the spiritual life.

Biography Ori Ansbacher was born in 1999 or 2000. 1 The 19-year-old daughter of Rabbi Gadi Ansbacher 2 and Naama Ansbacher of Tekoa is found murdered in the Ein Yael Forest, between the Jerusalem Zoo and the Arab village. of Walaja, Thursday, February 7, 2019 3 . The murderer, 29-year-old Arafat-al-Rifaiyeh of Hebron , was arrested on Friday night, February 8, 2019. He had left Hebron on Thursday morning, February 7, 2019, with a knife. He goes to the Palestinian village of Beit Jala and then goes to the forest. In the forest, he sees Ori Ansbacher, the attack and the murderer. He is arrested near Ramallahhe was in Israel , illegally 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 .

Ori Ansbacher was a volunteer at the Youth Center of Ye'elim Ein Yael, as part of his year of national service 15 . She had gone into the forest after an argument 16 .

She is buried in the cemetery of Tekoa, on Friday afternoon February 8, 2019 17 .

Mubarak Ali Gilani

has competing versions and has been the subject of edit warring.The user I blocked contends the competing version is slander(sic). The other version is less sourced and is too promotional. If y'all could help resolve the dispute, it would be grand. Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:23, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

RFC on size of infobox at Syrian Civil War article

RFC can be found on the article's talkpage here. Shearonink (talk) 22:17, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Victims section in Christchurch mosque shootings

Seeking consensus on a "Casualties and victims" section for the Christchurch mosque shootings article. It includes a table listing the known victims by nationality. If you can, please indicate your support or objection at Talk:Christchurch mosque shootings#Casualties and victims. Neegzistuoja (talk) 19:30, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Christian terrorism

This edit by User:Anomalous+0, adding Category:Anti-abortion violence in the United States back in the tree of Category:Christian terrorism, may not comply with WP:TERRORIST. After all, not all violence is terrorism. Just checking what other editors think of it. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:47, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

RfC - Categorizing the "2018 Strasbourg attack" article - is Petter Nesser at the FFI a reliable source?

See the talk page link for the 2018 Strasbourg attack article. AadaamS (talk) 07:02, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

RfC: terrorist incidents list criteria

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of terrorist incidents#RfC: List criteria. – Levivich 18:06, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Portal:Terrorism

Portal:Terrorism, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Terrorism and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Terrorism during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:51, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Reporting a user on terrorism

How do I report a user for supporting terrorist organizations or terrorist threats? SpinnerLaserz (talk) 21:06, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Part of project?

Should End Domestic Terrorism rally be part of this project? See discussion here. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:58, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:25, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

statesmen as terrorists

In the page 'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Journalists_who_died_as_a_result_of_terrorism' I miss quite some names. One of them is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamal_Khashoggi whose death has been positively connected to the leader of Saudi Arabia by various different sources.

Is there a reason why this person can not be a terrorist? Because monarchy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basvossen (talk • contribs) 22:51, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

This deletion discussion might be of interest to people here: wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Queerly_Bohemian/Userboxes/FreedomFighters.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 13:48, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Hijackers in the September 11 attacks#Merge discussion

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Hijackers in the September 11 attacks#Merge discussion . RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 02:32, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

al-Aqsa Foundation and al-Haramain Foundation

Please, check the discussion at Talk:Al-Aqsa Foundation#What is the exact subject of the article? Merge needed?. I need some help to identify each organization properly and fix List of designated terrorist groups accordingly. Thank you. --MarioGom (talk) 18:24, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Hey! I just wanted to drop a note that I've just made about ten or fifteen edits to the short descriptions of a number of terrorism-related articles, especially in Australia. These edits have just been to clean up or add missing short descriptions and to fit them to one of three formats:

  • For an attack
Terror attack in year in place
e.g. Terror attack in 2014 in Sydney, Australia
  • For a hostage-taking
Terror hostage-taking in year in place
e.g. Terror hostage-taking in 2014 in Melbourne, Australia
  • For counter-terrorism legislation
Counter-terrorism Acts of the legislative body in year
e.g. Counter-terrorism Acts of the Parliament of Australia in 2004

For attacks and hostage-takings that were thwarted, I've simply prepended "thwarted" to them. ItsPugle (talk) 12:11, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

New article needs sourcing, cleanup

Are terrorists mobsters?

A conversation that may be of interest to this Wikiproject: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Organized_crime#Defining_"organised_crime",_Part_II:_Terrorism . It concerns whether terrorism should be within the scope of WikiProject Organized crime. The status quo is "yes, terrorism is part of WikiProject Organized crime", so there's a bit of WikiProject overlap here. SnowFire (talk) 19:46, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello,
Please note that August 2016 Aden bombing, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 28 September 2020 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Adding articles to the project

Hi, i have been trying to improve the Conspiracy_of_Fire_Nuclei page and wanted to add itto this project, would this be the correct usage of Wikiproject Terrorism? It is already in organized crime and it seems from above there is some overlap. Thanks. W1tchkr4ft 00 (talk) 02:41, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Can someone please weigh in?

An editor seems inclined to delete significant RS-supported text that they do not seem to like, which bears on the utterance of Allahu Akhbar as a battle cry while performing terrorist acts.

The mass delete is here.

Other eyes would be helpful. Thanks. --2604:2000:E010:1100:7970:6CEA:7159:A47A (talk) 09:47, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Update to peer review page

Hi all, I've boldly updated your project's peer review page (Wikipedia:WikiProject Terrorism/Peer review) by updating the instructions and archiving old reviews.

The new instructions use Wikipedia's general peer review process (WP:PR) to list peer reviews. Your project's reviews are still able to be listed on your local page too.

The benefits of this change is that review requests will get seen by a wider audience and are likely to be attended to in a more timely way (many WikiProject peer reviews remain unanswered after years). The Wikipedia peer review process is also more maintained than most WikiProjects, and this may help save time for your active members.

I've done this boldly as it seems your peer review page is pretty inactive and I am working through around 90 such similar peer review pages. Please feel free to discuss below - please ping me ({{u|Tom (LT)}}) in your response.

Cheers and hope you are well, Tom (LT) (talk) 01:00, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Images of mass murder perpetrators at FFD

I welcome your input at the following link: Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 December 8#Several Images of mass shooters. --George Ho (talk) 23:28, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Requesting someone to look over an article

Hi everyone, hope you're all keeping safe in these difficult times. Would it be possible for someone to review this article: Suffragette bombing and arson campaign. It hasn't yet received a rating for quality or importance, but it is within the scope of this project. Thank you! ErraticDrumlin (talk) 13:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Gaza War (2008–2009) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Gaza War (2008–2009) to be moved to 2008–2009 Gaza conflict. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 10:42, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Shekau

Death recently confirmed by other terrorist(s). Bokoharamwatch (talk) 06:47, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

War in the Sahel (WikiFr)

Is there a corresponding article in English for the French article? Maybe Maghreb insurgency? Thanks! Bokoharamwatch (talk) 08:08, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Insurgency in the Maghreb (2002–present) Jim Michael (talk) 14:44, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Is one (of the two) mentioned terrorism-articles, "going about things in the wrong way"?

The 1995 Oklahoma City bombing article has no mention of "Breivik" (terrorist) or "Norway".
Good!

"2011 Norway attacks" has a sub-section about the Christchurch mosque shootings.
Dubious, perhaps!
(I believe that I can locate a wiki-notable reference that indicates a "flimsy link et cetera" between the Oklahoma terrorism and the Norway terrorism.
However, I can not see any fault with the current article about the Oklahoma terrorism.

Which article might be "going about things the wrong way" [my words].
The Norway terrorism article, or the Oklahoma terrorism article?

(For the record, I am not doubting that several wikipedians feel that I should not have posted on this discussion page. I understand such a sentiment. However, I think that the topic should actually be mentioned here first. Sooner or later there might be consensus to close this topic here, and move it to a different discussion page.) Thank you! 89.8.108.103 (talk) 04:38, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Looks like the 2019 "New Zealand terrorism" topic, will be staying in the 2011 "Norway terrorism" article, for quite a while.

8 hours after I mentioned an issue, on the wp:Terrorism page, then the Norway attack article was partially locked for one month:

" 13:24, 23 July ...‎ Changed protection settings for "2011 Norway attacks": Persistent disruptive editing: unconfirmed account/s, maybe try consulting with more experienced editors on the article talk page (Talk:2011 Norway attacks), because this isn't really working ([Edit=Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access] (expires ... 23 August 2021"

There have been (about) zero complaints on the talk page.

(Could it be that the 2019 "New Zealand terrorism" topic is so sensitive, that one should not rock the boat in the "2011 Norway attack" article?) 89.8.108.103 (talk) 18:14, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

1 sep

Anyone know anything about this? Topic:

Islamist attacks in zamfara & congo

Thanks. Bokoharamwatch (talk) 23:57, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Battle of Marawi#Requested move 10 September 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Battle of Marawi#Requested move 10 September 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 09:00, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

"SUV attack in 2021" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect SUV attack in 2021. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 23#SUV attack in 2021 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 65.92.246.43 (talk) 21:39, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Terrorist attack redirects

Hello, I have noticed that User:TompaDompa has redirected numerous terrorist attack articles this month, August 2021. Many of the attacks killed dozens of people or more. If these attacks occurred in Western countries, they certainly would have independent articles. Redirecting the articles furthers a bias towards the West which is rampant on Wikipedia. Thriley (talk) 18:49, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Copied from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Africa#Terrorist attack redirects: I actually rather agree with you on the WP:Systemic bias issue (though I don't know if that's on Wikipedia or the sources – i.e. the news media). The reason I redirected these particular attacks is that the articles were stubs and the attacks were covered in other articles in about as much detail (or rather with more or less the same amount of quality content), making the stubs unnecessary WP:Content forks. If the articles can be expanded and reach a higher level of quality, I would of course be in favour of doing so rather than redirecting them, but having a large number of articles that could be summarized in a paragraph on a larger article is not in my opinion helpful – it just makes it more difficult to maintain the content. TompaDompa (talk) 00:13, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Present. Bokoharamwatch (talk) 17:11, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Islam in Finland has an RFC

Islam in Finland, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 13:24, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

  • John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Teacher with gun in classroom

Teacher protects students with a handgun

This image said to be non-NPOV in arming teachers. Comment on article talk page if you can; I will also link that discussion to this notice. Bluerasberry (talk) 00:43, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:1988 Hyderabad, Sindh massacre#Requested move 30 August 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:1988 Hyderabad, Sindh massacre#Requested move 30 August 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 15:32, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

People’s Anti-Fascist Front

Would someone from this WikiProject mind taking a look at People's Anti-Fascist Front and assessing it? It was created a few weeks ago directly in the mainspace and has zero categories. It also has no WikiProject banners on its talk page, but it seems to fall within the scope of this one based on someone of the article linked to in the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:56, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Al-Bayan (radio station)

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Talk:Al-Bayan (radio station) regarding whether we should list known frequencies for this ISIL-run pirate radio station. Thank you. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:59, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Al-Bayan (radio station)#RfC: Radio frequencies has an RFC

Talk:Al-Bayan (radio station)#RfC: Radio frequencies has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:07, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

RFC on Al-Bayan

Your participation in an RFC at Talk:Al-Bayan_(radio_station)#RFC:_Radio_Frequencies_of_Al-Bayan is welcome. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:47, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Publicising RM: Iraqi conflict (2003–present) → Iraqi conflict (2003–2017)

Please see here: Talk:Iraqi_conflict_(2003–present)#Requested_move_6_March_2023 FOARP (talk) 15:19, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

AlexBalder01 edits

The edits of AlexBalder01 are focused on terror and I believe they should be checked by someone in the field. I have seen they removed the category FBI wanted terrorists from Khadaffy Janjalani and they actually were an FBI wanted terrorist. Also in the Kurdish Turkish conflict they were making controversial edits, but also in the Israeli Palestinian area and else they were editing I have seen. Maybe someone wants to go through their edits. They made hundreds of category edits. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:21, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

@Paradise Chronicle https://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorinfo @AlexBalder01

@Paradise Chronicle Check if Khadaffy Janjalani's name is on the FBI's Most Wanted terrorists list https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/terrorism/most-wanted. @AlexBalder01

He is not on the wanted terrorist now after he died. But he was in 2006.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:14, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Untitled message

So obviously there’s some gatekeeping at work here to prevent the average person from contributing. That is a shameful course of action because this website was intended to engage every-person. I’m here to flag a page that goes to great lengths, discussing the murder of private citizens, to couch criminal behavior in the words of a justified military force. Please review the page that results if you look up the following search terms “Israel Shireen Abu Akleh“ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.189.243.155 (talk) 21:32, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Iraqi insurgency (2003–2006)#Requested move 9 July 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Iraqi insurgency (2003–2006)#Requested move 9 July 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 01:50, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Kidnapping of Shani Louk#Requested move 30 October 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Kidnapping of Shani Louk#Requested move 30 October 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —Alalch E. 22:50, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Proposed mergers at Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war hostage crisis

Editors have proposed merging the articles Kidnapping of Hersh Goldberg-Polin and Kidnapping of Noa Argamani into 2023 Israel–Hamas war hostage crisis, which are of interest to this WikiProject.

You are invited join the discussions at Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war hostage crisis § Proposed merger and Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war hostage crisis § Proposed merger 2.—Alalch E. 17:39, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 6 November 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved (closed by non-admin page mover) — Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 03:19, 21 November 2023 (UTC)


Wikipedia:WikiProject Terrorism → Wikipedia:WikiProject Political Violence – It occurs to me that Wikipedia:WikiProject Terrorism is a WikiProject that is a bit at odds with the prevailing guidelines on Wikipedia. The WikiProject, created in 2006, is essentially a broad repository for all kinds of political violence (some of it explicitly and expressly terroristic in nature, some more ambiguous), but in its name, the WikiProject essentially goes against the precepts of MOS:TERRORIST, which is part of MOS:WTW (created in 2010), and instead opts for a POV term. Might it not be better, for the sake of adherence to Wikipedia's general position on avoiding POV terms such as "terrorist", to rename what is essentially the flagship WikiProject on political violence to "WikiProject Political Violence"? By that means the WikiProject name itself would help convey the principles already contained in Wikipedia's manual of style and reduce the somewhat awkward dissonance between Wikipedia's general practice, and its maintenance of a WikiProject name in defiance of it. It would also recognise that large outstanding issues surround the definition of "terrorism", see: Terrorism - The Definitional Problem, Who Become a Terrorist? Poverty, Education, and the Origins of Political Violence, Terrorism and political violence: An introduction, etc. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:57, 6 November 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. The Night Watch (talk) 22:02, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Iskandar323, a WP:WikiProject is a group of people. That group should (within reason) be allowed to choose its own name. What I don't understand is why your first and only post to this small group's page would be to propose that they change their name. I'm sure you wouldn't tell a neighbor that you don't like their family's name, that it's much too confusing, and that you've already filed the paperwork to get a 'better' name for them, without at least introducing yourself or saying hello first, but that's a bit like what you're doing here. You've started a sitewide move process without consulting or apparently even knowing anything about the people here. I think you should withdraw this request. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:44, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
WikiProjects are community platforms that should follow community guidelines. In this context, community input is entirely appropriate. If there were internal impetus within this WikiProject for reconsidering the WikiProject title in line with MOS:TERRORIST, it presumably would have already arisen by now. This WikiProject was named during the earliest epoch of Wikipedia, well before MOS:WTW (and incidentally at the height of the "War on Terror"), and MOS:WTW has now been flagging the issues with the terminology of "terrorism" for more than a decade. Has there been any internal discussion of this? And if not, surely that is an indicator of the need for the input of the wider community and fresh eyes? Alongside the clear cause for compliance with the community's evolving guidelines on neutrality and adherence to it, there are several potential benefits that I can think of to both the community and the WikiProject in electing for a more neutral title, and, given this, the matter is of community-wide interest. Perhaps the main one is that by framing the subject-matter area here in terms of its most strictly neutral and academic terminology, as "contemporary political violence, including terrorism, guerrilla warfare, and related forms of violence"[3], editors, readers and all users alike would be reminded to think less in terms of political rhetoric and clichés and more in terms of an encyclopedic and structured approach to political violence. It would encourage a more openly inclusive approach to political violence topics, where currently the WikiProject's POV titling currently places it, ostensibly, at one end of the 'terrorist–freedom fighter' POV spectrum. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:55, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
I think this is all based on a misunderstanding of where those rules apply. Please note:
  • From the first sentence of WP:WikiProject: "A WikiProject is a group of contributors who want to work together as a team to improve Wikipedia." Note "group of contributors", i.e., a social group of people.
  • From Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Not part of the encyclopedia: Names and other things that never appear in the mainspace "do not generally need to conform to the same content standards or style conventions as articles." WikiProject names, help pages, the policies themselves, etc., are not required to comply with the MOS (or with other policies, like NPOV. We're perfectly free to take a stand in the MOS or in our notability rules that is opposed by reliable sources).
WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:38, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
I have not suggested that any MOS is binding; on the contrary, few of Wikipedia's style guides are truly binding, but WikiProjects appear prominently on talk pages, which is a very public space that is second only to mainspace in terms of prominence, and I think the choice of terminology that is used there is an important one. What are we saying to new users when we quote guidelines such as MOS:TERRORIST at them, but at the same time, we have the talk page banner emblazoned with the name "WikiProject Terrorism" - it's mixed messaging and a rather needless internal inconsistency in my opinion. But of course, it is ultimately a matter of local consensus here, on this WikiProject. On that note, let us wait and see what other participants think. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:22, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
Relisting comment: may want some outside input here The Night Watch (talk) 22:02, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
On the contrary, The Night Watch, what would be needed to make such a change to a group's name is approval from the insiders. The OP and I are both "outside". As there has been no hint of support from the small group of people who would be most significantly affected, this contested moved should not happen. One of the actual insiders can re-open the discussion at any point in the future, assuming that one of them actually wants this to happen and is willing and able to do the significant infrastructural work (e.g., renaming all the categories and templates) necessary to make that happen. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:10, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing, what I meant by outside is input from other users apart from you and the nom, apologies if that was not direct enough. Though I have no interest in participating in this RM, your assertion As there has been no hint of support from the small group of people who would be most significantly affected, this contested moved should not happen is not a valid reason to close this discussion. The only situations in which a RM would be closed is when a consensus has emerged, or none thereof has formed after significant discussion. This discussion has been open for only a week, and needs time for other users to participate and potentially form a consensus. Simply closing it based upon the fact that none of the WikiProject participants have commented yet is inappropriate, as there may be several users who have their own opinions on the change yet missed it because it was not on the RM discussion list, including some within the project who support it. Yes, they could choose to reopen the discussion if they disagree with the outcome, but with only you and the nominator participating so far, it is valid to assume that consensus had not had the time to develop. Seeing that there is no policy-based reason to have this discussion closed early, and you and the nominator have been the only participants thus far, I relisted it to give time for other users to deposit their own policy-based viewpoints without abruptly shutting down the discussion. The Night Watch (talk) 16:25, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
Your claim that The only situations in which a RM would be closed is when a consensus has emerged, or none thereof has formed after significant discussion does not align with rules like "If no consensus has emerged, and you do not feel that an additional relisting will clarify consensus, a close of no consensus may also be appropriate without relisting" and "No minimum participation is required for requested moves". WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:42, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
You are correct in that no minimum participation is required, and also that a close of no consensus may be appropriate without relisting. However, I do feel that a consensus will be clarified after a relist. You and the nominator both have policy-based arguments, and I feel as if it would be appropriate to not close the discussion prematurely towards one outcome. Though you may be correct to suggest that my words go against the exact phrasing of the essay, I still presume within my limited discretion as a closer that a consensus will form through a relist, and though my words on closing may not be fully supported by that page, I do feel as though a consensus needs time to develop through a relist. If you truly think my relist was unjustified, you are always free to discuss my conduct as a closer to other users and let them scrutinize my actions. The Night Watch (talk) 17:04, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
I don't think the nom has a policy-based argument. The nom has named an inapplicable guideline. Merely name-dropping some WP:UPPERCASE is not enough to make a policy-based argument, just like not mentioning them does not make your argument non-policy-based.
For example: "I have some concerns about whether this is directly supported by the cited source" is a policy-based argument written in English. "This violates WP:ADVERTISING" is probably not a policy-based argument. (Click the link if you don't already know why...). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:52, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
I weighed your application of policy that the WTW and MOS:TERRORIST guidelines do not apply to WikiProjects with Iskandar323's statement that WikiProjects are community platforms that should follow community guidelines. While Iskandar's argument was not explicitly written down somewhere (to my knowledge) and within my discretion found your argument to have more weight, you both raise valid points on how WikiProjects should be treated, and thus found this to be a bit of a gray area that would need further development. I don't know what you're trying to get me to do by continuing this discussion. I have said why I believe this RM needed a relisting and used my discretion to do so. You are always free to invite other users to review my conduct, and they may close this RM and discipline me if I was found to be of poor judgment. I am always willing to bow out if one of my actions is found to be made out of incompetence. But as it stands, I intend to stand by my decision to relist. The ultimate result of this discussion will lie with the discretion of a different user.
But on a different note, I do find your knowledge of policy to be admirable. I'm certainly not as seasoned as many users like you who have been contribution for years, and that is one of my limitations thus far as a RM discussion closer. Seeing how you helped draft and implement portions some of the most commonly used PAGs, I would welcome any critique from you on my actions, and may wish to ask questions about some of the policies you helped write. I invite you over to my talk page if you wish to continue talking with me. I always hope to improve myself through the advice of other experienced users. The Night Watch (talk) 21:22, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. If an article is not really related to terrorism, remove the banner (as in this case). See WP:OVERBANNER
  2. MOS:WTW applies to articles, not wikiprojects.
  3. The wikiproject covers articles that are related to terrorism, and not all reliable sources in the world need to call them terrorist.
  4. The banner does not prove what is terrorist or not.
Parham wiki (talk) 09:21, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
But that just begs the question again of how you're defining "terrorism", which is the very bugbear that MOS:TERRORIST seeks to address. The WikiProject says: "While we have to date limited ourselves to acts of violence against civilians by Violent non-state actors ("VNSAs") for political gain, users are encouraged to add their own new focus." There is no mention or exploration of the relationship between terrorism and the broader milieu of less explicitly categorized political violence, nor any obvious clarity of distinction between them. The notion of "violence against civilians by Violent non-state actors for political gain" is vague and just as applicable to freedom fighters and resistance movements as it is to those labelled "terrorists", which is exactly the issue that MOS:TERRORIST outlines. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:30, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
It doesn't matter. The scope of a WikiProject is whatever that group of editors choose to work on. They could name themselves WikiProject Happy Rainbows and work on terrorism-related articles, and they can name themselves WikiProject Terrorism and work on rainbow-related articles. I wouldn't personally recommend having the group's name diverge too far from the group's area of interest, but the guideline says they're allowed to. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:04, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
I suppose it somewhat depends on whether you think that WikiProjects are community tools for the good of the community or hobby zones. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:29, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject says they are groups of people, and I wouldn't wish to treat a group of people as if they were just tools for other people's purposes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:30, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
Please dispense with the mock offense. A WikiProject is a platform on Wikipedia attended by a group of people; the platform and people are not synonymous, and I'm sure you understand what I mean regardless of the sentiments expressed at Wikipedia:WikiProject. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:54, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
The official guideline says "A WikiProject is a group of people who want to work as a team to improve Wikipedia", but you're entitled to your own opinion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:57, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
It also says "A WikiProject is fundamentally a social construct" - now it can't be both people and social construct. One sentence must be poorly worded. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:32, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
I think that's possible for a group to be both people and a social construct, but if you'd like to explore that question, I suggest asking User:Kirill Lokshin about it, since he introduced that language. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:22, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
They're retired, so I'm not sure that's going anywhere. But my point was rather that the first definition is dubious. A WikiProject is objectively not a group of people, since if all it's people leave, it fundamentally still exists ... Iskandar323 (talk) 23:28, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
I disagree. If all the people leave, it stops existing, like a ghost town stops existing when all the people leave. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:39, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
And as with a ghost town, which still exists as a thing, new people can move in. It doesn't leave existence in the middle. Iskandar323 (talk) 23:41, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
But it's not a town in the meantime. A town is where people actually live, not where unmaintained buildings show visitors where people used to live. If you want to have a philosophical discussion about the nature of WikiProjects, perhaps you'd start that at WT:COUNCIL, where it would be welcome. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:43, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
I didn't actually start the semantics - that would be yourself, so you are welcome to stop and engage in the actual substance here, rather than protesting the process, whenever. Iskandar323 (talk) 23:47, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
No. While of course this field is hard to strictly define, the manual of style is not relevant here, as it is a WikiProject. WikiProjects are first and foremost avenues for editors with a common interest to collectively improve articles. An article being tagged with a WikiProject banner simply means that it is of interest to the participants in that WikiProject. What article is and isn't applicable to a WikiProject is up to the members of that WikiProject.
fwiw I added my name to the participant list today, but I've been editing in this type of article for a while so PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:00, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussion to add a parameter to the civilian attack infobox

I have started a discussion as to whether a 'sentence' parameter should be added to the civilian attack infobox here. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:00, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks#Should Operation Al-Aqsa Flood by Hamas included in the list of Islamist Terrorist attacks?

An editor has started an RfC asking "Should Operation Al-Aqsa Flood by Hamas be included in the List of Islamist terrorist attacks?" at Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks#Should Operation Al-Aqsa Flood by Hamas included in the list of Islamist Terrorist attacks?. Interested editors are invited to participate. TarnishedPathtalk 09:16, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

What was the outcome of the discussion?
I don't think it counts. "Terrorist" maybe (if we call the IRA that?) but not "Islamist". The main motive was nationalist.
There were secular groups who joined in, a small number of blokes, but at the very least it shows unambiguous endorsement and says something about the point of the attack.
Irtapil (talk) 08:25, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

flags and insignia

What are the rules for Wikimedia Commons for flags or insignia of non-state actors in conflicts?
Pretty much everywhere with banned symbols laws makes exceptions for history / educational use so that isn't what I'm worried about.
But what are the rules for copyright? They don't "tick any of the boxes" for public domain.
Do we need to redraw them? Hand making a near-identical image seems like a strange exercise but I'll try to do a few of the missing ones if that's what is needed.
What format is needed? Do they need to be SVG?
Are there any weird rules about fonts? Can any fonts be used in image on commons? The fonts I have access to most easily are Microsoft and Google Fonts. Is there a better option?
Irtapil (talk) 06:14, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
SIL have a lot of very free fonts on an open font license … i don't know if that seems very wrong or amusingly perfect. Irtapil (talk) 09:44, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

RfC of interest

This may be of interest to editors. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2023_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war#RfC_on_sexual_violence_in_lead_section --Coretheapple (talk) 22:05, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Alessandro Orsini (sociologist)#Requested move 4 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Alessandro Orsini (sociologist)#Requested move 4 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:03, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:April 2023 Israel rocket attacks#Requested move 5 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:April 2023 Israel rocket attacks#Requested move 5 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:26, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Re'im music festival massacre#Requested move 6 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Re'im music festival massacre#Requested move 6 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:03, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Siege of Gaza City#Requested move 6 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Siege of Gaza City#Requested move 6 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:33, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Holit massacre#Requested move 10 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Holit massacre#Requested move 10 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:34, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Nir Yitzhak massacre#Requested move 10 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Nir Yitzhak massacre#Requested move 10 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:38, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Houthi involvement in the Israel–Hamas war#Requested move 12 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Houthi involvement in the Israel–Hamas war#Requested move 12 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:18, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Please help improve the following articles

Requesting collaboration to improve the articles List of terrorist incidents in the Palestinian territories, List of terrorist incidents in Israel in 2022, and List of terrorist incidents in Israel in 2024 , which are all currently being considered for deletion, in order to make sure that these articles align with Wikipedia guidelines. I believe that all the major issues brought up in the deletion request could be addressed and fixed if we work to improve these articles collaboratively, especially considering the precedent of similar articles existing for various other countries on the English Wikipedia. Your expertise and contributions are highly valued. WikiJunkie (talk) 14:46, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:2024 Crocus City Hall attack#Requested move 22 March 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2024 Crocus City Hall attack#Requested move 22 March 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 (talk) 00:39, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Seton Hall reports#Requested move 28 March 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Seton Hall reports#Requested move 28 March 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:12, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Attack on the Azerbaijani Embassy in Tehran#Requested move 7 April 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Attack on the Azerbaijani Embassy in Tehran#Requested move 7 April 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 (talk) 23:46, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Tel al-Sultan airstikes#Requested move 27 May 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Tel al-Sultan airstikes#Requested move 27 May 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 (talk) 05:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Untitled

Moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Terrorism/Assessment

A contributor removed the WikiProject Terrorism template from an article with the edit summary:

"prejudment - there is nothing in the article that confirm he is or has been involved in terrorism"

The individual in question is alleged to have attended two Afghan training camps American counter-terrorism analysts routinely described as "terrorist training camps".

No, a mere allegation doesn't confirm he was involved with terrorism.

But is this template intended to be used solely on individuals who have been confirmed to be terrorists? Or is it also to be used on articles about individuals when an authoritative verifiable source has alleged are involved with terrorism?

If it is the latter then I think the template should be restored. Geo Swan (talk) 22:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

  • The template is used for anybody believed, suggested or proven to be a victim or perpetrator of "terrorism" or "the war on terror"; with these examples, either the men are perpetrators...or they are victims. Either way, the template belongs. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 04:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed merger with WikiProject Terrorism

Moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Terrorism/merger

As both groups are basically dealing with the same subject, it seems to me to make sense that the two Projects combine efforts. They might be able to improve more articles more quickly if they had a coordinated effort to do so, as opposed to having two, potentially competing, groups covering the same territory. Badbilltucker 14:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

As the founder of the aforementioned group, I would strongly invite and welcome the members of this group into our fold - we could benefit greatly from combining our passions to learn and educate. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 15:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes i think joining together is a good idea as it makes a stronger project.Hypnosadist 01:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Uh... we never agreed to merge. It takes two to tango, and we refuse. This project is fine as is, and I most certainly dont want to join yours now that you vandalized our page... ~Rangeley (talk) 13:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
That's a spurious accusation of vandalism. Please don't call other editors vandals until they start adding random obscenities of pictures of genitals to articles. It pretty much derails any possibility of dialogue. Whoever merged the projects was clearly not trying to damage the encyclopedia, so let's keep the mud out of this. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I didn't vandalise anything, I merged the two projects. Please doublecheck edit summaries before reverting. I'm combining the two "participants" into one, I'm moving the two lists of objectives into one, I'm adding all your information into ours. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 14:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
This project is not merging into yours. You invited us to, and if someone wants to join yours they can, however as the founder of this I have never once agreed to merge and most certainly will not now. I do not appreciate your removal of things from this and placing them on your project as if you had that authority. I will also ask you to stop removing our templates from pages. ~Rangeley (talk) 21:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Being a "founder" gives you no more power than anyone else in a WikiProject. -- Ned Scott 01:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Nobody owns any page here. Common sense matters more than anyone's ego, and common sense seems to point towards merging projects with near-identical scope. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The two fundamental questions to me seem to be

  • (1) which name would be better, "Terrorism" or "Terrorism and counter-terrorism", if there were to be a merger, and
  • (2) is any real purpose served by having both of the two overlapping projects exist and, at least potentially, begin some kind of edit warring?

Personally, I would favor the latter name, as it is slightly broader and deals with the responses to terrorism as well. And, regarding the second question, there have been projects dealing with the same subject matter competing with each other before, and the results were not good. In the instances I am aware of, one of the projects was deleted over the objections of the project's participants. I sincerely hope that the two of you can achieve some sort of reasonable agreement, or at least accomodation of each other. One other possibility exists. Do you think that both groups could agree on a third name for a project, which potentially you could both "merge" into? I would welcome any responses. Badbilltucker 17:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

A merger is not happening. ~Rangeley (talk) 20:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
WikiProjects aren't clubs, it doesn't work like that. You can't actually "refuse" in that manner. It might be that the two projects do not merge, but it's not just because you say so, etc. You are showing serious ownership issues here. WikiProjects are supposed to be points of collaborations first, not groups of editors first. It's a bit like having two talk pages for the same article. In some situations, depending on the Project's scope, having more than one project can be ok, but this is not one of those situations. Having two different projects with the same scope will only lead to conflict, will be very inefficient, and is just plain.. stupid. -- Ned Scott 09:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I guess we have a difference of opinion then. There are overlaps in many projects, I don't see how having an overlap can lead to conflict. Unless of course people from one project start removing templates from the other or removing information from their page. This has happened to our project in the past, and it was not appreciated. I am perfectly fine with the existence of this other Wikiproject with similar aims, and while you seem to think it stupid I am willing to have some good faith that the people of both projects can both improve Wikipedia. ~Rangeley (talk) 02:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
WikiProjects are points of collaboration first, and groups of people second. Why would we have two different points of centralized collaboration? Isn't that.. an oxymoron? There is no reason to keep two projects like this, as it totally defeats the point of having a WikiProject. It shouldn't matter "where" the talk pages are, or what title the templates have, it's the same effort and same kinds of discussion. Why would you want to needlessly separate something like that? there's no point. -- Ned Scott 02:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Has this question been resolved as a "no-merge"? I do see the two projects being very closely aligned and, by the title, one would assume that the "Terrorism" project is a subset of the "Terrorism and Counter-Terrorism" project. So, what was the consensus on the merger? --Kimontalk 14:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd certainly be interested in re-starting talks to try and merge the two projects, it seems pointless and inefficient to overlap each other. The only person who has voiced any feeling against a merger is the founder of WP:TACT (I'm the founder of WP:T) who seems to be having some issues with WP:Ownership. Personally I feel "Terrorism and Counter-Terrorism" is an overly long name, though I certainly believe that counter-terrorism articles should be an equal focus of the/our project/s. In my mind, it's the same as if we called it Wikiproject:American Revolution and the British Response To Such or something...one can assume that the subject includes those opposed to it. Anyways, both projects seem to have a strong core of editors, and if there's still clear consensus to merge, then I'd love to start cross-referencing our lists of articles upon which to focus, and those which are featured, or working towards FA status, those that need work, new articles that need attention, AFDs and everything else that the projects should be doing for each other. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 12:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I got your message about merging the two projects called terrorism and counterterrorism. I favour the idea. The new name should include both words "terrorism" and "counterterrism".
But I don't think I'll be having much to do with Wiki in the future, at least on terrorism. Wiki is too vulnerable to anonymous ignoramuses who regard Wiki as just one more free site on which to splatter their personal graffiti. You know how it goes. I'm going to be moving over to one of the Creative Commons sites. LDH 22:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC) (moved from userspace)
  • Support merge --TheFEARgod (Ч) 21:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Mild oppose For two reasons. First, I believe that the focus of WP:CounterTerrorism articles are less theoretical and philosophical, and more historical and tactical in nature. In the same way that an article on Mt. Everest falls equally under the scope of WP:MOUNTAIN and WP:CLIMB, two different wikiprojects that quite often share articles, the Operation Entebbe article is important to both the terrorism and counterterrorism projects for different reasons. It's important to the WP:Terrorism project in that it was a major state sponsored terrorist event, in which hostages died. It's important to the WP:Counterterrorism project, in that it was an example of the tactical use of C-130's to quickly deploy light tank units, as well as one of the defining operations of several prominent israeli commanders, including Yonatan Netanyahu's death. Look at it this way. Terrorism does not need counter-terrorism to exist. It exists on its own, regardless of any attempts to stop it. At the same time, Counterterrorism articles are generally not about the broader applications of testimony, but more about the physical counterterrorism operation itself.. That's my argument. The second part is simply aesthetical: the name is too long. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 22:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong support - The subject of counterterrorism is inherently dependent on the subject of terrorism. Given the fact that the articles are so closely related in terms of subject matter, it makes no sense to have them continue to exist as separate projects. The separation could also, at least potentially, result in the creation of a POV fork which is something we try to avoid. Personally, I wouldn't mind having the joint project called Terrorism and Counterterrorism, to make its scope clearer, but the name really isn't all-important. John Carter 22:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Support1)Merging will provide a unity of location to discusss the Many issues this area of study raises. 2)Avoids POV as i can see by the nature of the names of the projects that counter terror could become POV towards the governments and terrorism pov for the terrorists and freedomfighters (note i dont think this HAS happened just its a risk). 3)All counter-terrorism articles are covered under the broad heading of studying terrorism, its really a sub-set like biogs of terrrorist/groups or methods of terrorism. 4)It will make interreacting with big wikiprojects whose areas we touch upon such as LAW and Military History much easier because of the unity of discusion.(Hypnosadist) 22:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support - I don't understand Rangeley's opposition to merging. Maybe there's some reasoning I don't know about. I was there when the one project was founded, and I'm pretty sure we didn't realize there was a pre-existing project. Merging seems to make good sense, and no person, founder or otherwise, has the authority to dictate how projects go without consensus support. As I am an extremely inactive editor, perhaps my opinion matters less, but it was requested, so there it is. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support as the topics do seem to be similar.--SefringleTalk 03:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support seems like a good idea so that everything can be organized more appropriatly and easier.--Southern Texas 03:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support it realy looks it will be better if the projects are merged. The projects have both a lot of common things between them and it will help to improve the main topic of the projects.(talk) 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. No reason to spread ourselves over two concepting projects.--Vindheim 14:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - am really alarmed at the rather haughty proprietorial attitudes displayed above- diran 15:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Given the broad support, I'm beginning to merge the two projects. This will probably take anywhere from a few days, to a week, since I hope to "update" the projects as well and try to add new/better features. For right now I'm moving it to Wikiproject:Terrorism, but that is free to change if people want to dispute which name we're using. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 17:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merger with WikiProject Terrorism

Moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Terrorism and counter-terrorism
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

As both groups are basically dealing with the same subject, it seems to me to make sense that the two Projects combine efforts. They might be able to improve more articles more quickly if they had a coordinated effort to do so, as opposed to having two, potentially competing, groups covering the same territory. Badbilltucker 14:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

As the founder of the aforementioned group, I would strongly invite and welcome the members of this group into our fold - we could benefit greatly from combining our passions to learn and educate. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 15:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes i think joining together is a good idea as it makes a stronger project.Hypnosadist 01:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Uh... we never agreed to merge. It takes two to tango, and we refuse. This project is fine as is, and I most certainly dont want to join yours now that you vandalized our page... ~Rangeley (talk) 13:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
That's a spurious accusation of vandalism. Please don't call other editors vandals until they start adding random obscenities of pictures of genitals to articles. It pretty much derails any possibility of dialogue. Whoever merged the projects was clearly not trying to damage the encyclopedia, so let's keep the mud out of this. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I didn't vandalise anything, I merged the two projects. Please doublecheck edit summaries before reverting. I'm combining the two "participants" into one, I'm moving the two lists of objectives into one, I'm adding all your information into ours. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 14:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
This project is not merging into yours. You invited us to, and if someone wants to join yours they can, however as the founder of this I have never once agreed to merge and most certainly will not now. I do not appreciate your removal of things from this and placing them on your project as if you had that authority. I will also ask you to stop removing our templates from pages. ~Rangeley (talk) 21:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Being a "founder" gives you no more power than anyone else in a WikiProject. -- Ned Scott 01:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Nobody owns any page here. Common sense matters more than anyone's ego, and common sense seems to point towards merging projects with near-identical scope. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The two fundamental questions to me seem to be

  • (1) which name would be better, "Terrorism" or "Terrorism and counter-terrorism", if there were to be a merger, and
  • (2) is any real purpose served by having both of the two overlapping projects exist and, at least potentially, begin some kind of edit warring?

Personally, I would favor the latter name, as it is slightly broader and deals with the responses to terrorism as well. And, regarding the second question, there have been projects dealing with the same subject matter competing with each other before, and the results were not good. In the instances I am aware of, one of the projects was deleted over the objections of the project's participants. I sincerely hope that the two of you can achieve some sort of reasonable agreement, or at least accomodation of each other. One other possibility exists. Do you think that both groups could agree on a third name for a project, which potentially you could both "merge" into? I would welcome any responses. Badbilltucker 17:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

A merger is not happening. ~Rangeley (talk) 20:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
WikiProjects aren't clubs, it doesn't work like that. You can't actually "refuse" in that manner. It might be that the two projects do not merge, but it's not just because you say so, etc. You are showing serious ownership issues here. WikiProjects are supposed to be points of collaborations first, not groups of editors first. It's a bit like having two talk pages for the same article. In some situations, depending on the Project's scope, having more than one project can be ok, but this is not one of those situations. Having two different projects with the same scope will only lead to conflict, will be very inefficient, and is just plain.. stupid. -- Ned Scott 09:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I guess we have a difference of opinion then. There are overlaps in many projects, I don't see how having an overlap can lead to conflict. Unless of course people from one project start removing templates from the other or removing information from their page. This has happened to our project in the past, and it was not appreciated. I am perfectly fine with the existence of this other Wikiproject with similar aims, and while you seem to think it stupid I am willing to have some good faith that the people of both projects can both improve Wikipedia. ~Rangeley (talk) 02:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
WikiProjects are points of collaboration first, and groups of people second. Why would we have two different points of centralized collaboration? Isn't that.. an oxymoron? There is no reason to keep two projects like this, as it totally defeats the point of having a WikiProject. It shouldn't matter "where" the talk pages are, or what title the templates have, it's the same effort and same kinds of discussion. Why would you want to needlessly separate something like that? there's no point. -- Ned Scott 02:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Has this question been resolved as a "no-merge"? I do see the two projects being very closely aligned and, by the title, one would assume that the "Terrorism" project is a subset of the "Terrorism and Counter-Terrorism" project. So, what was the consensus on the merger? --Kimontalk 14:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd certainly be interested in re-starting talks to try and merge the two projects, it seems pointless and inefficient to overlap each other. The only person who has voiced any feeling against a merger is the founder of WP:TACT (I'm the founder of WP:T) who seems to be having some issues with WP:Ownership. Personally I feel "Terrorism and Counter-Terrorism" is an overly long name, though I certainly believe that counter-terrorism articles should be an equal focus of the/our project/s. In my mind, it's the same as if we called it Wikiproject:American Revolution and the British Response To Such or something...one can assume that the subject includes those opposed to it. Anyways, both projects seem to have a strong core of editors, and if there's still clear consensus to merge, then I'd love to start cross-referencing our lists of articles upon which to focus, and those which are featured, or working towards FA status, those that need work, new articles that need attention, AFDs and everything else that the projects should be doing for each other. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 12:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I got your message about merging the two projects called terrorism and counterterrorism. I favour the idea. The new name should include both words "terrorism" and "counterterrism".
But I don't think I'll be having much to do with Wiki in the future, at least on terrorism. Wiki is too vulnerable to anonymous ignoramuses who regard Wiki as just one more free site on which to splatter their personal graffiti. You know how it goes. I'm going to be moving over to one of the Creative Commons sites. LDH 22:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC) (moved from userspace)
  • Support merge --TheFEARgod (Ч) 21:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Mild oppose For two reasons. First, I believe that the focus of WP:CounterTerrorism articles are less theoretical and philosophical, and more historical and tactical in nature. In the same way that an article on Mt. Everest falls equally under the scope of WP:MOUNTAIN and WP:CLIMB, two different wikiprojects that quite often share articles, the Operation Entebbe article is important to both the terrorism and counterterrorism projects for different reasons. It's important to the WP:Terrorism project in that it was a major state sponsored terrorist event, in which hostages died. It's important to the WP:Counterterrorism project, in that it was an example of the tactical use of C-130's to quickly deploy light tank units, as well as one of the defining operations of several prominent israeli commanders, including Yonatan Netanyahu's death. Look at it this way. Terrorism does not need counter-terrorism to exist. It exists on its own, regardless of any attempts to stop it. At the same time, Counterterrorism articles are generally not about the broader applications of testimony, but more about the physical counterterrorism operation itself.. That's my argument. The second part is simply aesthetical: the name is too long. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 22:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong support - The subject of counterterrorism is inherently dependent on the subject of terrorism. Given the fact that the articles are so closely related in terms of subject matter, it makes no sense to have them continue to exist as separate projects. The separation could also, at least potentially, result in the creation of a POV fork which is something we try to avoid. Personally, I wouldn't mind having the joint project called Terrorism and Counterterrorism, to make its scope clearer, but the name really isn't all-important. John Carter 22:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Support1)Merging will provide a unity of location to discusss the Many issues this area of study raises. 2)Avoids POV as i can see by the nature of the names of the projects that counter terror could become POV towards the governments and terrorism pov for the terrorists and freedomfighters (note i dont think this HAS happened just its a risk). 3)All counter-terrorism articles are covered under the broad heading of studying terrorism, its really a sub-set like biogs of terrrorist/groups or methods of terrorism. 4)It will make interreacting with big wikiprojects whose areas we touch upon such as LAW and Military History much easier because of the unity of discusion.(Hypnosadist) 22:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support - I don't understand Rangeley's opposition to merging. Maybe there's some reasoning I don't know about. I was there when the one project was founded, and I'm pretty sure we didn't realize there was a pre-existing project. Merging seems to make good sense, and no person, founder or otherwise, has the authority to dictate how projects go without consensus support. As I am an extremely inactive editor, perhaps my opinion matters less, but it was requested, so there it is. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support as the topics do seem to be similar.--SefringleTalk 03:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support seems like a good idea so that everything can be organized more appropriatly and easier.--Southern Texas 03:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support it realy looks it will be better if the projects are merged. The projects have both a lot of common things between them and it will help to improve the main topic of the projects.(talk) 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. No reason to spread ourselves over two concepting projects.--Vindheim 14:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - am really alarmed at the rather haughty proprietorial attitudes displayed above- diran 15:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Given the broad support, I'm beginning to merge the two projects. This will probably take anywhere from a few days, to a week, since I hope to "update" the projects as well and try to add new/better features. For right now I'm moving it to Wikiproject:Terrorism, but that is free to change if people want to dispute which name we're using. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 17:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Current status

Am I correct in thinking that this Project is now dead and therefore all use of {{WPTCT}} tags is deprecated in favour of {{WikiProject Terrorism}}?? I just want to make sure - I still see some {{WPTCT}} tags around, and as I'm assessing a lot of Italy articles at the moment I'm sadly finding quite a lot to tag with a Project in this area and want to tag correctly. If the {{WPTCT}} tag is deprecated, it would be useful for 'casual' users such as myself if the Project front page made this clear without having to come to this page and read through the above debate - at the moment it looks like the Project is still active, and the front page makes no mention of WikiProject Terrorism. Oh, and someone might want to go through and clean up all those "old" tags. TIA FlagSteward (talk) 12:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any indication that the WPTCT tag is deprecated. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 21:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
It was my understanding that the two projects were effectively merged, meaning just the WP:T tag should really be used - there is no point to having separate projects competing for attention just to satiate the ego of members. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 22:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Because the projects are merged does not automatically mean that the tags are deprecated. As for the satiating of egos, I have no idea what that's about, but you might want to try assuming good faith and being nice. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 06:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Since there is WP:TACT anymore, it does mean the tags are depracated, actually. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 06:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Now what?

Okay, so looks like last anyone heard the projects were merging. Has that been completed? If so this page should be deleted. --S.dedalus (talk) 06:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for The CIA and September 11

The CIA and September 11 has been nominated for a 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 may be removed from the article. Spinixster (trout me!) 13:22, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Mohamed Atta#Requested move 19 August 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Mohamed Atta#Requested move 19 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Aprilajune (talk) 02:20, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Palestinian suicide terrorism#Requested move 21 August 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Palestinian suicide terrorism#Requested move 21 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPathtalk 08:56, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

"Symbolism of terrorism" article

The article Symbolism of terrorism needs a lot of work - the structure is confusing and arbitrary, and most of the content is simply two separate summaries of single sources. Those sources focus almost exclusively on Islamic terrorism. The "Symbolism of target choice" section looks alright, but everything else ranges from odd and confusing to problematic. remainsuncertain (talk) 18:50, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Hezbollah

Hezbollah has been nominated for a 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 may be removed from the article. It is a wonderful world (talk) 21:04, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:2019 El Paso shooting#Requested move 15 September 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2019 El Paso shooting#Requested move 15 September 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 01:48, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for George W. Bush

George W. Bush has been nominated for a 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 may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 18:07, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Israel–Hamas war#Requested move 13 August 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Israel–Hamas war#Requested move 13 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. --MikutoH talk! 22:06, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Merging into WP:CRIMEPROJ as a task force

WP:TERRORISM is almost entirely inactive, while WikiProject Crime is decently active. The scope of this project also falls entirely under the scope of WikiProject Crime's - i.e. there are no articles tagged with this project that cannot also be tagged with the Crime project. For centralization of discussion, it would be for the best if the resources and work of the people interested are pooled together since there is so much overlap.

Since Terrorism-related articles have unique concerns, it's best that it be maintained as a task force. All the assessments and project tags can be maintained as part of the Crime banner, just shifted to a task force parameter. The Organized crime project also got merged into the Crime project as a task force, and that has worked fine, everything kept its assessments.

Thoughts? PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:20, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Support: As an editor who has been assessing articles for this WikiProject for several years, now, I have frequently added a crime banner to a "Terrorism" article in the course of assessing it, because the article describes crimes, or the perpetrators are prosecuted for criminal offences. On rare occasions, I have encountered article that I did not also tag as being crime-related, but they mainly dealt with counter-terrorism and fell under "Law enforcement, or "military activity", instead. However, counter-terrorism could be considered a form of crime prevention activity, so it inclusion in WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography is reasonably understandable. From a crime classification perspective, terrorist acts are basically counted as another type of crime. The UNODC's International Classification of Crime for Statistical Purposes (ICCS) has several classification categories dedicated to terrorism related crime along-side offences relating to national security. Also, deaths as a result of terrorist acts are inclusion criteria for Intentional homicides (0101). So there is a clear rationale for considering terrorism to be a crime. I also like the idea of making Terrorism a separate task force. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 02:13, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
Anyone else have any thoughts? Because if there are no objections, I will do the merge soon. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:30, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
@PARAKANYAA: The lack of participation by others in this discussion suggests nobody else is watching this page. There are merging guidelines at WP:MERGEPROP that explain how to formally propose a merger and to notify affected users. Since you have already started a discussion here, what should probably be done now is to put a notice on both WikiProject pages and perhaps send a ping to the "active" WikiProject Terrorism editors, or at least those who have added themselves to the list in the last couple of years. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 17:44, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
@Cameron Dewe: By "both pages", do you mean e.g. the main Wikipedia:WikiProject Terrorism page rather than the talk page we're currently on? jlwoodwa (talk) 17:48, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
@Jlwoodwa: Yes. I did say "WikiProject" pages, and the instructions say that notices go on article pages, rather than talk pages. Apologies if that was not clear enough. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 18:02, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
@Cameron Dewe The merging instructions for WikiProjects as given on the guidance page doesn't say to use merge tags, but I do agree I may want to ping people. Thanks! PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:19, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Pinging the people who have added themself to the list in the past few years:
@Baltarstar @Parham wiki @Tamedu quaternion @Randoperson1 @DivineReality @TheEpicGhosty PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:42, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Support: The concept of crime does seem to encompass the entirety of the concept of terrorism. I do wonder if there are edge cases, like state oppression being legal in some places, but to all outside observers it would be terrorism. In any case, I think this would be a productive merge because there is more activity on WikiProject Crime, and that might make it easier to onboard assistance for the new task force. Good idea!
Baltarstar (talk) 11:23, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
We have two supports (three counting me) and no opposes after over two weeks, including all the active members of this project, so I take that as a sign that I have consensus and will begin doing the merge stuff soon. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:19, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
One recommendation as a precursor for making a WikiProject defunct is to edit the participants list and divide it into those who have been active in the last year, not active in the last year and those who have been blocked. I thought this a good idea to also apply for the merged task force, so I have edited the list of participants in the Terrorism task force to show those who have been active on Wikipedia in the last year and those whose last edit was more than a year ago, as well as those who are blocked indefinitely and those whose supplied user name no longer exists. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 10:33, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Israel–Hezbollah conflict (2023–present)#Requested move 2 October 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Israel–Hezbollah conflict (2023–present)#Requested move 2 October 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Web-julio (talk) 07:26, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Crime_and_Criminal_Biography/Terrorism_task_force/Archive_4&oldid=1252567479"
pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy