Template talk:Terrorism

Ordering

I was wondering if there is any specific reason for the way the "types" and "tactics" of terrorism are ordered. gren

What about the hijackings?

In the history section plane hijackings seem to be missing. I believe one of the first was done in Stockholm by Ustasha and there were numerous other ones by PLO.

US-led Campaign War on Terror's relation to this template's subject

I removed it as irrelevant. A co-editor has a different opinion. --JokerXtreme (talk) 14:04, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

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

Hindu (Saffron) terrorism in the wrong place

Currently, the link to Saffron Terror is from the Hindu link under the Religious section in this template. However, Saffron terrorism isn't a religious terrorism, it's a political one, as the article states. It is based around Hindu nationalism and Hindutva. This is political/nationalist terrorism, not religious. It should probably be moved around in the template. It's more a subsection of Right-wing terrorism. Silverseren^C 04:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and moved it myself. I don't think anyone is really going to comment on here anyways, so I might as well just make the change and then respond to any disagreement if it occurs. Silverseren^C 18:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

That's kool... Yep, be bold :p. There's only 48 watchers anyways, hehe. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 08:59, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• I have added Hindu terrorism along with Buddhist and Sikh terrorism as the Safforn terror is not entirely an political terrorism. Part of it is a religious terrorism. Thanks, --- Buzzzman 19:10, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Worst template ever

This template is one of the worst I ever seen. Terrorism is not a end by itself, it's a mean some organizations tried to achieve its goals. By that, it should not be treat isolated of the others, but in conjunct with the context inserted. Jack Bufalo Head (talk) 14:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

"Most Wanted" Area Request

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

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

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

ex: NIA Most Wanted in regard to Interpol Notices

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

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

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

Counter-jihad

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

How is terrorism insurance fighting terrorism? Anti-communism is part of the communism series. Counter-Jihad falls in the same niche.Icewhiz (talk) 17:46, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Terrorism insurance isn't necessarily about fighting terrorism, you're right. But its a neutral topic that is actually relevant to terrorism. Counter-jihad includes not just opposition to Islamic terrorism, but also often opposition to Islam and Muslims. Unless you equate Islam or Muslims with terrorism, it is fairly obvious to see why it doesn't to a Template on terrorism.VR _talk 22:35, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I'd also be fine with removing Terrorism insurance in favor of keeping this template more focused.VR _talk 22:39, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Counter-jihad, on the stated public level is not anti-Muslim, but rather against the political aspects of Islam. The terror \ jihad by muslims link is quite clear 90s onward, and counter-jihad references this by refering to jihad explicitely. Just because IDONTLIKE McCarthy or counter jihad, is not a reason to omit.Icewhiz (talk) 23:08, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

There's plenty of academic sources on Counter-jihad that show is anti-Muslim. (And I see you're trying to remove academic references for no reason on that page).VR _talk 15:34, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

(I was not removing sources, but making the lead conform to being a summary of the body, more there). I do not contest this movement has been described as anri Muslim by some. Perhaps it even is. It is still a clear response, even if misguided (according to some), to the major terror source in the past 30 years - Jihadism.Icewhiz (talk) 17:54, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Do you have a source to back that assertion? Darkness Shines (talk) 18:01, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

While one could pull a Geller, Spencer, or random CJ proponet discussing terror, how about this (an anti-CJ source): [1] In the aftermath of the 9/11 and 7/7 attacks, it appeared that rightwing groups were devoting more effort in targeting public anxieties not merely over immigration and Islam but specifically the rising salience of religiously-inspired terrorism.. (and really - the whole chapter - pages 37-42 which is titled "The Rise of Extreme Right and Jihadist Radicalisation: HOW DO THEY FEED OFF EACH OTHER?").Icewhiz (talk) 18:50, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

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

I disagree, but here's another (anti-CJ source) - [2] [3] The movement’s roots can be traced back to the 1980s, though it crystallised in its modern form following the attacks on 11 September 2001.. I will note that the American wing is very much rooted in September-11 responses (and subsequent terror/violence), the European movements (EDL, etc.) - have somewhat different origins (including football hooligans). Or this source (again anti-CJ) - [4] I argue that the Counterjihad is fundamentally a product of both the 9/11 attacks on the United States and the connectivity brought about by the internet over the last Decade - and then a search of "9/11" in the book - gives a godzillion different expansions on the 9/11 side of this premise. You are also welcome to search for 2001 and terror in the views of CJM proponents here - [5]. Or this description: [6] - Counter-jihadists believe that Islamic doctrine itself is the root of the terrorism problem; they have proposed incredibly aggressive steps including shutting down roughly 80 percent of mosques in the United States.. I could go on and on digging sources - but Counter-Jihad's root as a response, and a supposed cure, to terrorism is quite clear (and evidenced by the name itself). Very much so on the American side (where Eurobia / Islamization / etc. - is not the main focus - but rather fear of terror).Icewhiz (talk) 19:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Just because something happened after the 9/11 terrorist attacks doesn't mean it was a response to terrorism. For example, Islamophobic incidents in the United States spiked after the 9/11 attacks. Doesn't mean we should link to them in this template as a "Response to terrorism". Many of those Islamophobes who attack innocent Muslims believe that their action is a response to terrorism.VR _talk 22:37, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

One of the stated aims of Counter-Jihad is to counter the supposed (by them) Jihad of Muslims against the west - as manifested (per them) by terror attacks against the west, such as 9/11. This is a very clear connection - right in the title of the movement. The movement mostly started as a direct response to 9/11 2001 (and pre-cursor roots in the 1980s (back when it wasn't called this way) were in response to the Iranian Islamic revolution (and the hostage taking of American diplomats), Islamic terror in Lebanon (particularly Hezbollah and other groups aligned with the Islamic Republic) against Western targets - e.g. 1983 Beirut barracks bombings and Lebanon hostage crisis), after that pre-cursor AQ as well the rise of Palestinian Islamist terror (prior to the late 1980s - the main Palestinian factions weren't Islamist but pan-Arab or red (e.g. PFLP). Hamas and Islamic Jihad Movement in Palestine gained traction in the late 80s). Islamophobia, in contrast, is a wider phenomena not necessarily directed towards Jihad, and possible with roots that go much farther back.Icewhiz (talk) 05:58, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Again, so does Islamophobia. Many, if not most, Islamophobes equate Islam to terrorism. So, for example, this fella believed he was attacking a terrorist when he assaulted a Muslim teen. So is assaulting a Muslim teen a "response to terrorism"? Is it "fighting terrorism"? Please answer my questions.

The point is, just because you think you are fighting against terrorism doesn't mean you actually are. Including counter-jihad in this template can even be construed as a tacit endorsement of the counter-jihad POV.VR _talk 17:18, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

No more than listing homeopathy (which in personal view is outright quakery, though with a placebo affect) as a possible alternative treatment method.Icewhiz (talk) 17:37, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Huh? Are you referring to "Template:Alternative medicine sidebar". That one clearly lists homeopathy under the "Fringe medicine" title. We don't seem to be listing counter-jihad under a "Far-right extremist response to terrorism". In any case, that template is irrelevant to our discussion here.VR _talk 06:06, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

It also seems counter-jihad material (or instruction by counter-jihad proponents) has been provided to local and federal law enforcement and justice in a counter-terrorism context: [7] [8] (seems like this is even tracked by pro-muslim groups - [9] ). [10] [11] (an Obama era purge seems to have cut some of this out of the FBI) [12].Icewhiz (talk) 11:12, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Why does anarchist here redirect to Propaganda of the deed

Shouldn't it redirect to Anarchism, like would happen if we typed anarchist in the search box? TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:43, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Terrorism image

In a recent edit, the image below was added to the top of the template. That edit was later reverted, citing issues with the ways that thumbnail previews use the image. Should the image be included in the terrorism template?

• Option 1. Yes, the image should be included atop the template. (as in this revision)
• Option 2. No, the image should not be included atop the template. (as in this revision)

— Mhawk10 (talk) 07:00, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Discussion: Terrorism image

• Option 1. In general, it is a good practice to include related images atop many sorts of sidebars. There is no image of terrorism that is more iconic and appropriate than that of a plane hitting the World Trade Center on 9/11. If we're going to have an image to represent the subject, and we should, then the image of the 9/11 terrorist attacks seems like the most appropriate one. — Mhawk10 (talk) 07:00, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• Option 2—The template is more useful as a text-based tool. The addition of an image limits that utility. —¿philoserf? (talk) 07:47, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 - As a navigation tool used across multiple articles, it would be strange to have this image included on every page regarding a terrorist attack, even ones not related in any way to the 9/11 attack. Fieari (talk) 04:11, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2. Templates don't require images; when they do have one, it should be an image that genuinely encompasses or represents the entire subject (ie. the flag for a country, the main symbol of a religion or political party - something that will be appropriate and relevant on every single article where the template might reasonably be applied.) Simply being an "iconic" example is not sufficient, and will inevitably seem strange or startling on articles about terrorist attacks unrelated to 9/11. --Aquillion (talk) 05:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 per Aquillion and Fieari.VR _talk 06:43, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 per Aquillion. This image is too specific to be used for a navigation template of a more generalized topic. Isabelle ^🔔 14:57, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
• option 1 I partially agree Mhawk10 above. We should use an image, but not 9/11, it isnt the only act of terrorism in the history. We should not use any iconic incident either. We should use some garden variety image, but that would make you think, "yupp, thats terrorism". Maybe some building burning/being thrashed, or something like that. How about that image by the way? —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 15:39, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1. Side-infoboxes without images look pale and practically invisible. I don't see any problem in replacing the image at any time. Everyone is free to raise an RfC if they want. WP:Consensus can change AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 13:08, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 Due to the methodologically and ideologically varied nature of terror, you will never find an image that neutrally represents the topic as a whole. Were this for a side-box on solely Islamic Terrorism the image might be appropriate, but for terrorism at large the best image is no image. BSMRD (talk) 23:02, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 ~ cygnis insignis 13:52, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

  @Cygnis insignis: Could you please clarify what you recommend doing? There is no option 3, and you have not explained your position. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 22:46, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Delete the template. ~ cygnis insignis 03:59, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

That can't be done here, you'd have to go through WP:TFD. --Aquillion (talk) 22:21, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

• Option 2. Per MOS:DECOR. Nobody supporting the inclusion of this image has stated what encyclopedic purpose it serves. The rationale given by Alexander seems to be essentially an aesthetic one, which directly violates MOS:DECOR. Colin M (talk) 19:59, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2, terrorism comes in various forms and I agree with the points above that singling out one single incident, however "iconic", does not truly represent the topic in a general way. I think there are some occasions where no single image can really be justified as representing a topic, and this is one of those topics. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:50, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2. For sidebar templates like this one, images are entirely optional, and in my experience including an image in this type of template can often be confusing when the image is of a very specific example and the article transcluding the template is unrelated to that example. I think this image would look strange and confusing in the leads of articles like Anti-abortion violence or Terrorism in India, where the template is currently transcluded. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 15:50, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2. Mainly for reasons outlined by Aquillion and BSMRD. This is too specific to one kind of terrorism in the US to have any value generally. Pincrete (talk) 17:59, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

• Option 2 per Fieari. It would be extremely bizarre to display this image across the wide range of articles about terrorism (like Letter bomb and Car bomb). This is is one of those sidebar topics that is poorly suited for an image. — Goszei (talk) 10:07, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Inclusion of "Hindu terrorism" as religious terrorism

@Iskandar323: As the article Hindu terrorism does not describe this as a religious terrorism, and as it is not categorized as religious terrorism, this sidebar should also not link to it under religious terrorism. Only when the article describes "Hindu terrorism" as religious terrorism should it be added in this way in the sidebar. The sidebar and similar such templates should not make claims that go beyond what the article says. —Alalch E. 08:09, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Category:Hindu nationalist terrorism is categorized as Category:Religious terrorism. At the risk of stating the obvious, "religious nationalist" anything is just a subdivision of "religious" anything. It is all religious nationalist extremism, which is still religious extremism, just one level down. Religious nationalism is politicized religion, as that page explains. Under Religious_nationalism#Muslim_nationalism it has Hamas, the Taliban and al-Shabaab - are you saying that because these might be Muslim nationalists, they are not Islamic terrorists? Iskandar323 (talk) 08:20, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that this category which you created recently was added to the Religious terrorism category. I understand that you created the category under this name when you thought that the title that I had boldly moved to was adequate, and that you want the category to ultimately be named Hindu terrorism. The article has to say that Hindu nationalist terrorism or Hindu terrorism have a religious motivation for this topic to be categorized as religious terrorism. A sidebar can not say it for the article. Categories should not imply statements not given explicitly in the article. Definitions are given in prose not implicitly, in navigation templates and categories.—Alalch E. 09:13, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Ok, well I believe I have made the connection plain now with an array of reliable sourcing. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:29, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you.—Alalch E. 10:47, 2 May 2023 (UTC)