Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography/Terrorism task force/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Definition

I think it would be best if we defined terrorism, for the purposes this project, as "violence against civilians by an organized, non-state actor for political purposes." That rules out Hussein, various U.S. presidents, et cetera. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 04:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Any definition of terrorism that excludes state actors is extremely biased from the very start, and defies the historical meaning of the term. The word's very origin is based on state terrorism in the French Reign of Terror. If you wish to use that definition, call it "non-state terrorism". -- DBooth 04:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Entirely agree with DBooth and will not participate in any project on terrorism that excludes state actors from the definition. Lexo 16:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

while i agree that the above definition is an admirable attempt, and certainly fits the current usage of terrorist/ism in the world media & western politics, i have several issues with it. 1. it excludes the brighton bombing. grounds - civilian does not include the commander in chief of the armed forces (also priome minister) who was widely reguarded to be the chief target of that attack. 2. 'non-state' has a haze of terrorist vs freedom-fighter to it... perhaps 'unpopular' would fit as well? perhaps finding a definition should be the prime focus of this project? i suggest 'pejorative term describing combatants in internationally unrecognised wars & their acts. often used as a dismissive tactic for their ideologies & to demonise enemies of the local state.' Commentary 12:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• Consider Ilario Pantano.
  • The officer who held Pantano's artile 32 hearing recommended he be held responsible for his decision to desecrete the bodies of the two Iraqis he shot.
  • Pantano slowly and methodically emptied two entire magazines into them. Three shots at a time. In his June 2004 statement to military investigators he says his rifle was set to fire three bullets per trigger pull. That's twenty trigger pulls.
  • He said, several times, that he had planned out, ahead of time, that he was going to "send a message". He had briefed his troops to "send a message". "Sending a message" was his justification for firing 60 bullets. He didn't just empty two magazines into his captives. He scrawled a sign that he placed over their bodies, that read "no better friend, no worse enemy".
  • He didn't call for body pickup. Some accounts say he posed their bodies, took trophy photos, and couldn't stop bragging about his trophy kill... Another officer, another platoon commander, like himself, chewed him out, and he went back and removed the sign and called for the civilian body pickup agency.
  • Should we consider Pantano a terrorist? What does it mean if someone uses dead bodies "to send a message". What is the message of a mutilated body? Isn't it a warning, to civilians, telling them that cooperation, or sympathy, with the insurgents, could result in their death and mutilation?
  • Most press reports, in American papers, describe his two captives as "terrorists". That is not clear. They were unarmed. They didn't live in the compound where his troops found 3 AK47s.
  • Most press reports assert that his captives were advancing on him, in a threatening manner, and that he warned them to stop, before he opened fire. They assert this even though it directly contradicts his statement to military investigators. In his statement to the military investigators he said he yelled at his captives to stop -- to stop talking to one another. They weren't advancing on him. They were on their knees, facing into the open doors of their vehicle, where he had placed them.
  • So, should Pantano be counted among the terrorists? -- Geo Swan 10:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • The definition specifies a "non-state actor". Unless the U.S. disavows his actions, he can be assumed to be acting under the orders of the U.S., so this example doesn't fit. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 19:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, Bush administration wants it both ways. When Rice and Karen Hughes were on their good will tours they kept insisting that incidents of abuse were isolated, the actions of rogue soldiers, and, had all been punished. -- But Pantano wasn't punished. He was exonerated. Lewis Weishofer wasn't meaningfully punished either. Kevin D. Myricks got six months for beating his captives. Weishofer who murdered his captive just gets docked a couple of months pay. Carolyn Woods lead her soldiers into beating her captives so badly two of them died. The coroner said that the only time she had seen wounds that bad was when the victim had been run over by a bus. Yet Captain Woods hasn't even been charged. She was awarded two Bronze Stars.
      • The Bush administration wants it both ways. They want the world to believe that abusers were isolated rogues -- outliers. But they want to excuse all but the most notorious of the terrorists within the forces, because holding them to account it bad for morale. -- Geo Swan 11:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• Consider the strategic bombing campaign of World War 2.
  • The mathematician Jacob Bronowski has said that the average bomb dropped from a strategic bomber, in World War 2, only had a fifty-fifty chance of landing within five miles of its target. Five miles. Think how far that is.
  • Some historians argue that Churchill and Roosevelt knew, or should have known, that strategic bombing was causing enormous loss os civilian life, with practically no military results to show for it. They argued that the two real reasons for the bombing campaign were for the morale effect.
  • The allies needed to think they were striking back. By their arguments regular allied civilians, and regular soldiers and sailors needed to know somebody was doing something to strike at Germany, before the invasion of Normandy, before there was a regular second front. And they argued that regular folk wanted vengeance against the Germans.
  • Some historians have also argued that the allied leaders allowed the strategic bombing campaign to drop bombs that mainly killed civilians in order to break the morale of the regular Germans.
  • I don't know that Churchill and Roosevelt, and the senior members of their military, knowingly dropped bombs in order to terrorize German civilians. But, if, for the sake of argument, they had taken those actions in order to terrorize civilians, why shouldn't those actions be considered terrorism? -- Geo Swan 10:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Again, non-state actor. State terrorism is not included in this project. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 19:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• Consider the Unabomber. He would meet the definition above, except he was a loner. He didn't have any support group. Does that mean we shouldn't consider him a terrorist? -- Geo Swan 10:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Depends on what "organized" means in the definition above. To simplify things, I'd say Lone-wolf terrorism shouldn't be included. This makes cases like the Oklahoma City bombing difficult, though, since it's hotly debated wether McVeigh acted alone or not. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 19:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• When the Chilean and Argentinian military juntas clandestinely kidnapped, tortured and killed those they suspected might sympathize with their political opponents, they calculated how to do it in ways that would be the most terrifying to the friends and and acquaintances of those left behind. This attempt to terrorize civilians wouldn't meet the definition above, because it didn't meet the "non-state" part of that definition.
  • One could say, "we won't consider that terrorism -- we'll call it "state terrorism", or something similar. But, does this really make sense, if the only difference between terrorism, and "state terrorism", is whether a state or non-state organization was behind it, does it really make sense to distinguish between them? -- Geo Swan 10:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I see your point, but I think it's best to keep the situations separate, for two reasons. One is that most definitions of terrorism in the English language define non-state actors, and, to paraphrase a total idiot, "we write an encyclopedia with the English language we have, not the English language we want." The other is that actions by states are so complicated that this project could never go forward without separating the two; there's just too much grey. Admittedly, there are still gray areas: what about semi-government organizations, such as the Palestine Liberation Organization or the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam? What about state-sponsored terrorism, such as Iran's backing of Hezbollah or Uganda's unspecified support for the Lord's Resistance Army? But this at least keeps it simple enough to be manageable. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 19:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• Consider the second attack on Fallujah.
  • My reading of the Geneva Conventions is that a belligerent that has to bombard a city has an obligation to allow the civilians to leave first. My reading of the GC is that the belligerent is obliged to provide refugee centers for the fleeing civilians. The USA didn't do this. Some civilians were able to leave. They had the money to travel. And they had a place to stay, once they left. But a significant percentage of Fallujah's residents needed the Americans to provide refugee centres. They couldn't afford to travel, or they didn't have any place to go. So they stayed behind. The Marines treated Fallujah as a free fire zone. They fired on anyone in the streets, even ambulances. They leveled whole city blocks, even though the city was still full of civilians.
  • A lot of people say Zarqari is a terrorist because he mounts attacks that he would have to know would mainly kill civilians. But, when the Marines bombarded Fallujah, they should have realized that they too would mainly kill civilians.
  • So, if Zarqari is a terrorist, why isn't James Mattis, the CO of the Marines, a terrorist? -- Geo Swan 10:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Same as above. I personally think the actions are morally equivalent, but not semantically equivalent. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 19:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Ilario and Mattis were working for government organizations (US Army), so are automatically discluded from this project's scope, not neccessarily from being terrorists, that's just up to each individual. Similarily, the Dresden bombing (And why doesn't anybody ever mention the bombing of London?) falls far short of a 1975 cut-off date to have to worry about. As per whether we should differentiate between "State terrorism" and "terrorism", I think the simplest answer is "Yes, just like we differentiate between murder and assassination", they are two different phenomena in the world, that use similar tactics to achieve similar goals, but "State terrorism" would fall under a separate project. As per the Unabomber, he's a difficult case whether or not to include...Timothy McVeigh definitely acted in concert with several John Does, and the Nicholls brothers...but Theodore didn't, as I recall...personally I'd suggest we leave him off the list myself, but that would depend on consensus I suppose. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 19:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

When I was contributing to some military articles several months ago, supposedly there was some discussion going on about the use of the word terrorist anyplace in Wikipedia, because it is a POV word like the N word. There have been people in various countries that called themselves freedom fighters and had sympathetic supporters world wide, who changed sides after 9/11. Many nations, particularly in Europe are so anti-Israel that the Palestians can do anything, and it is Ok, that is not considered terrorism, while attacks on camps from which suicide bombers originated, that's considered terrorism by the pro-Palestinia nations. Can we find a link to that discussion and what the outcome of it was? User:AlMac|^(talk) 04:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Given that the definition of 'terrorism' is hotly disputed, I would think that trying to pin down a definition here counts as original research. I think the word shouldn't be used in wikipedia at all unless its part of a citation. Damburger 12:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I totally disagree to define terrorism as an act of violence not comitted by a State. There truly IS such a thing as State terror, as it happened at many times throughout History, so it's very bizarre and unsubstantiated to put it aside for a more "Bushworld" definition of the term "terrorism". Why can't we just agree on the definitions that were already coined by the major dictionaries???

From the Free Dictionary:

[1] : The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48

   Terrorism \Ter"ror*ism\, n. [Cf. F. terrorisme.]
      1. The act of terrorizing, or state of being terrorized; a
         mode of government by terror or intimidation. --Jefferson.
         [1913 Webster]

      2. The practise of coercing governments to accede to
         political demands by committing violence on civilian
         targets; any similar use of violence to achieve goals.
         [PJC]

[2] : WordNet (r) 2.0

   terrorism
        n : the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence)
            against civilians in order to attain goals that are
            political or religious or ideological in nature; this is
            done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear
            [syn: act of terrorism, terrorist act]

   See also: [act of terrorism] [terrorist act] 

...and a lighter definition by Merriam-Webster's dictionary:

Main Entry: ter·ror·ism Pronunciation: 'ter-&r-"i-z&m Function: noun

the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

- ter·ror·ist /-&r-ist/ adjective or noun - ter·ror·is·tic /"ter-&r-'is-tik/ adjective

Let's go for:

"violence against civilians by an organized actor, for political or ideological purposes, aimed at influencing through fear."

I am not in this project but there have been efforts for a Wikipedia policy on the word. --Error 23:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

and there is also Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Extremist, terrorist and freedom fighter which seems tamer now than months ago. --Error 01:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Subjects

Off the top of my head, here are some subjects that ought to be covered.

General: Terrorism, Definition of terrorism, Template:terrorism, Mujahideen, Jihad, Freedom fighter, List of terrorist organisations, Suicide bomber, Counter-terrorism, Nationalist terrorism, Domestic terrorism, Terrorist front organization, Eco-terrorism, International conventions on terrorism, List of terrorist incidents, List of organisations involved in religious terrorism, Narcoterrorism, Anarchist terrorism, FBI Most Wanted Terrorists

Japanese Red Army: Haruo Wako, Osamu Maruoka, Shigenobu, Yu Kikumura, Yoshimi Tanaka, Yukiko Ekita, Kozo Okamoto, Masao Adachi, Lod Airport massacre, Japan Airlines Flight 472, Malaysia Airlines Flight 653

Irgun: List of Irgun attacks during the 1930s, David Raziel, Lehi (group), Avraham Tehomi, Deir Yassin, King David Hotel bombing, Uri Avnery, Yitzhak Shamir

ETA: Grupos Antiterroristas de Liberación, Francisco Mujika Garmendia, José Luis Alvarez Santacristina, José María Arregi Erostarbe

Palestine Liberation Organization: Fatah - the Revolutionary Council, Abu Nidal, Yasser Arafat, Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, Black September (group), Munich massacre, Salah Khalaf, Khartoum diplomatic assassinations, Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine - General Command, Avivim school bus massacre, Dawson's Field hijackings (Leila Khaled and Patrick Arguello), Kiryat Shmona massacre, Ma'alot massacre, Achille Lauro, Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, Marwan Barghouti, Zakaria Zubeidi, Popular Resistance Committees, Palestinian Islamic Jihad Movement

Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam: Velupillai Prabhakaran, S. Subramanian, Anton Balasingham, Sea Tigers, Thenmuli Rajaratnam

Hamas: Muslim Brotherhood, History of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, History of the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria, Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, Yahya Ayyash, Abdel Aziz al-Rantissi, Ahmed Yassin, Salah Shahade, Adnan al-Ghoul, Mohammed Deif, Salah Shahade, Wa'el Nassar, Salama Hamad, Imad Abbas, Nidal Fat'hi Rabah Farahat, Imad Aqel, Mahmoud al-Zahar, Netanya suicide attack, Patt junction massacre, Jerusalem bus 20 massacre, Jerusalem bus 2 massacre, Ibrahim al-Makadmeh, Members of Hamas called Qawasameh, Mohammad Taha, Khaled Mashal, Mousa Abu Marzuk, Izz El-Deen Sheikh Khalil

Provisional Irish Republican Army: Seán Mac Stíofáin, Dáithí Ó Conaill, Joe Cahill, IRA Army Council, Bloody Friday, Continuity Irish Republican Army, Real Irish Republican Army, Balcombe Street Siege, Birmingham Six, Birmingham pub bombings, Guildford Four, Brighton hotel bombing

Hezbollah: William R. Higgins, 1983 Beirut barracks bombing, Islamic Jihad, April 1983 U.S. Embassy bombing, William Francis Buckley, Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah, Abbas al-Musawi, Israeli Embassy attack in Buenos Aires, AMIA Bombing, Imad Mugniyah, Ibrahim Hussein Berro, Alas Chiricanas Flight 00901, TWA Flight 847, Mohammed Ali Hammadi, Imad Mugniyah, Hassan Izz-Al-Din, Al-Manar

Red Army Faction: Andreas Baader, Thorwald Proll, Gudrun Ensslin, Horst Söhnlein, German Autumn, Brigitte Mohnhaupt, Christian Klar, Susanne Albrecht, Landshut Hijacking

Al-Qaeda: Oplan Bojinka, September 11, 2001 attacks, 11 March 2004 Madrid train bombings, and many, many more

Others: Action Directe (urban guerrillas), Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia, Boricua Popular Army, Red Brigades, Shining Path, Weatherman (organization)

Lone-wolf terrorism: Eric Robert Rudolph, Timothy McVeigh, Baruch Goldstein, David Copeland, John Allen Muhammad, Lee Boyd Malvo, Theodore Kaczynski

Tangentially or controversially related: Earth Liberation Front, Animal Liberation Front, Tali Fahima, Khalid bin Mahfouz

I fill in more as I have time. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 04:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

By all means, edit some of these into sections on the main page - I moved over the Japanese Red Army earlier today. I'm left wondering if we should discount Irgun and try to focus on the terrorism since 1970 (1960?), to further pinpoint our focus...but then we cut out what some might see as a POV balance (other than the 1994 Mosque of Abraham massacre) - the other question that will arise is whether we want to include articles on Shamil Basayev as organizer of Beslan, or Khalid Sheikh Mohammed as an architect of 9/11...or stick only to the direct terrorists involved in the actual event. Personally I favour the latter approach, again to try and cut down on the numbers. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 07:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Finally, to pare it down a bit more, to avoid things like Jerusalem bus 2 massacre or December 2005 Palu bombing, that we also state that it's dealing with organized terrorism, or something, to avoid having to list all ___ suicide bombers and such? Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 07:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea of narrowing this down. Here's my suggestion:

This projects concerns only "acts of terrorism" (as defined above) that occured since XXX (1975? 1990? 2000?) and killed over XXX people (10?). The project concerns the acts themselves, their perpetrators, victims, and surrounding topics.

What do you think? Is this a good way to be thorough, yet narrow the scope? We could call it the "contemporary terrorism" project if we wanted to be more precise. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 01:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Well the Munich Massacre and Dawson's Field hijackings were 1972 and 1970 respectively, and personally I'd say they epitomize the "golden age" of terrorism, at least in the West - so I'd suggest making the date 1970. Whether or not we should include a minimum death count I'm wary, since many things, like the hijackings, did not end up with any fatalities (other than the hijackers), but still sowed terror, made global headlines, and were the birth of a new movement.

More terminology

• Al-Qaeda
  • There is what THEY call the Crusaders for which I do not see a Wiki article explaining this belief system. There is reference to the medieval crusades, which occurred before the USA came into being.
• Fatwa is a religious part of Islam in the absense of Sharia or Islamic secular law. It is important to make sure there are no attacks on normal parts of a religion because some parts of it have been used by some religious leaders to foment war against the West.
  • The fatwas proclaimed by Osama bin Ladin have got enormous press coverage, distorting the meaning of fatwa in the eyes of non-Muslims.
    • Oops, he issued two separate fatwas
    • 1996 titled: "Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places."
    • 1998 has 3 grievances
      • U.S. occupation of the Arabian Peninsula (at the invitation of nations there to protect them from Saddam after invasion of Kuwait)
      • U.S. aggression against the Iraqi people (aftermath of Saddam invasion of Kuwait)
      • U.S. support of Israel
  • Pat Robertson issued a Christian equivalent of a fatwa, calling for the assassination of Hugo Chávez, then withdrew it after heavy criticism.

User:AlMac|^(talk) 08:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Emerging debate

I've got a question for the participants in this (these) WikiProject(s). Is the mere assumption of the concept "terrorism" related to the official point of view of certain governments about it? Without a strict definition of the term, this WikiProject by itself could derive in a biased set of articles, opinions and assertions that would be taken just as an mere echo of persons, institutions or even States that have strong interests in the general perception of what "terrorism" is. That problem is particularly notorious in some of the proposed aspects involved in the WikiProject, such as "Terrorism and Counter-Terrorism". Who decides if certain armed action is a genuine act of terrorism? Are the "legally covered" military actions, against a specific group or a whole country, outside any judgment of its hypothetic terrorist character? Wikipedia has its main strength in the neutrality, which guarantees the independency of the global project and, also, allows the project to be shared in its philosophy by many people around the world. I know that it could be very hard for the leaders of the Wikipedia project take control of the spread variety of initiatives that appear here and there (and, certainly, this is not the idea of those leaders), but it is quite important for the future of this valuable project that its nature doesn't get distorted as new branches emerge.

Good luck on this

I'll try to contribute as I can, but doubt I'll be able to do enough to call myself a "participant" (I'm in poor health)... I see you running into all kinds of controversy from people who deny any difference between stealth attacks on innocent civilians and nation-state military actions, but by my lights there is indeed an objective difference with real moral implications, and I hope you can hold the line on that. JDG 20:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Taking off main page, throwing back here behind the curtain

main article

|Barzan Ibrahim al-Tikriti |Taha Yassin Ramadan |Awad Hamed al-Bandar |Abdullah Kadhem Roweed Al-Musheikhi |Mizher Abdullah Roweed Al-Musheikhi |Ali Daeem Ali |Mohammed Azawi Ali Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 20:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Trolling for opinions

9/11 hijackers, we seem to say "They also used the alias..." quite a bit, when it seems like a slightly POV term, when these are almost entirely FBI mix-ups, or media misspellings, not aliases. I'm in favour of keeping the list of additional names for a reader to search for online, but think we should instead say "His name was at various times identified as..." - thoughts? Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 13:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

So long as the name is very similar, that sounds like a good idea. I'd be careful about "Zaid Jarrahi" in particular, since that is the focus of quite a bit of contoversy - but that article says "There are many variations on his name, including. . .", which should be fine. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 14:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Arabic names seem more prone to innocent nicknames, even without the complications of different transliterations. And some cultures, like Russian, Native American, and, it seems, some Arabic cultures, seem more prone to apply innocent nick-names to people. See the Combatant Status Review Tribunal for Abdullah Kamel Abdullah Kamel Al Kandari -- his name is spelled half a dozen different ways in his dossier. Yet, he was told that he was detained because his name matched one found on a hard drive captured from another al Qaeda suspect's computer. -- Geo Swan 16:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

No kidding. Check out Abu Nidal, born "Sabri Khalil al-Banna", also known as "Amin al-Sirr" and "Sabri Khalil Abd Al Qadir" -- and each of these could be spelled 50 different ways! – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 16:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Heh

Just as per the earlier discussions on the difference between what is known about the hijackers (Hani Hanjour enrolled at Sawyer Aviation), and what is only 'known' about them, but widely reported by the media (Atta enjoyed lapdances, based on the testimony of strippers who recognise his face), I think I found my favourite, where this link indicates Folks at the Chapel of Love quickie-marriage emporium even swear they saw Atta driving a cab. Heh Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 11:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

important in the present scenario

there is no doubt that Al qaeda is the number1 terrorist organisation in the world,and it is not listed here.so i have. and by the way,how come this project doesnt have templates? Mes Aynak?--Jayanthv86 18:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Al-Manar

Although the article doesn't appear on your project page, I guess this article would fit into your project, since al-Manar has been listed as a terrorist organization by the state department: I would like to improve/expand/ the article on this tv station (possible even to FA status) and was hoping you guys would be interested in helping me. I have searched the whole internet for sources and listed them as a sub-page of my user page. Would you be interested in helping here?--Carabinieri 10:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Terrorism

Check the archives. A lot of key topics there.

For example. Osama bin Laden, and his representatives, have made several speeches trying to explain why they declared war on America, and what it is they want ... their conditions for peace. Does their position have a place in this Wikipedia, and can it be protected from vandalism? User:AlMac|^(talk) 04:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes it does, and it can be only with vigilance. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 12:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Islamic extremist terrorism

Another place with relevant discussion, defining terminology. Terrorism may or may not include Islamic extremists. Which is the more correct terminology? Islamist or Islamic? I feel like we may need a Wikithesaurus giving the best words to use in what context. This would be a prerequisite to merging some similar articles. User:AlMac|^(talk) 08:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

"Islamic" just means having to do with Islam. The hajj is an "Islamic" rite, for instance. "Islamist" is a political belief that the state should be based on "Islamic" principles. (Many Muslims would say that if you are a Muslim, you must be an Islamist, since Islam is a whole life system that includes politics just as much as it does morality, but that's another matter.) Anyway, Islamists are frequently non-violent, but nearly all Muslim terrorists are "Islamists" -- they want to establish a Muslim state.

The word "extremist" is also very troubling. Ziad Jarrah was not, I would argue, a Muslim extremist, since he apparently drank alcohol and had a girlfriend who didn't wear a veil. He wasn't even a good Muslim, much less an extreme one. The Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani is much more of an "extremist" in the sense of "fundamentalist", but he advocates voting and has issued a fatwa against political violence in Iraq. I think the word "extremist" is just a POV term that doesn't help describe someone's actual belief system. Wouldn't it be better to say that Sistani is a "devout" Muslim, and Jarrah was a "less devout" Muslim? Both are obviously Islamists. But Jarrah believed in killing civilians in order to acheive a political goal, and Sistani does not.

I think the term "violent Islamists" is the best one to use. It describes someone willing to use violence to establish a Muslim state. But of course many violent Islamists reject terrorism, arguing that violence is only justified in warfare against enemy soldiers -- like the Qur'an says.

I hope this helps, – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 13:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Where is the proof?

Way too much self-serving identification of groups and individuals as terrorists here. Where is Luis Posada Carriles, the mastermind behind the explosion of a Cuban airliner?

Where is the discussion of false-flag terrorism, used by certain countries to frame their political enemies?

Clearly this page and project has been started with the intent of demonizing anti-american and anti-Israeli "terrorists". So much of the information here, esp. the identities of the WTC demolition-related hijackers is based on nothing more than the assertions of a lying administration... talk about revisionist history...

Any constructive criticism is welcomed. Luis Posada Carriles should indeed be a part of this project, for instance. But it's important to assume good faith. I listed Israeli terrorists as well as Muslim terrorists. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 13:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Aye, similarily, I welcome the addition of any notable terrorists of any stripe. The two that I am most familiar with are the Beslan hostagetaking (which was not religiously motivated, so can hardly be called anti-Muslim...I've actually been one of the people keeping the term "Islamic terrorists" off the Beslan page for months now - and the 9/11 hijackers, who I definitely don't think I villanize, and instead grow paranoid about whitewashing. Try actually reading articles before you complain about them, and where you see gaps, help us fill them :) Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 13:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Counter/anti terrorism

Can we add the pages on Counterterrorism and antiterrorism to this project, or must we only refer to individuals here? I ask this because my expertise is in my experience wtih CT/AT tactics in the military, not history. ⇒ SWATJester 20:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of adding things, can we add the recent intelligence summit in where Terrorism was a key topic (second only to release of tapes showing Saddam's intent to avoid Weapons Inspectors)? ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 10:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

India related articles

Just stumbled on this and find the project attractive; however, I do not have much time on my hands these days - so, I'll leave a note. Babbar Khalsa seems to be ok, but the articles on the terrorists mentioned there need to be started or improved. I see regular discussions on Talk:Nelson Mandela as to the contention that he is a freedom-fighter vs. the one which calls him a terrorist. I see the same on Talk:Terrorism in Kashmir as well, so someone may want to step in. --Gurubrahma 08:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Red Army Fraction

I took liberty in adding the German Red Army Fraction and the German Autumn to the project page. I feel that these articles also could need some work. Ben ^T/_C 03:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Juba (sniper)

While I really hate to bring even more opinions to this article, it could really use expanding. Can someone here help out? It is becoming incredibly hard to find anything verifiable on this sniper/freedom fighter/terrorist. Thanks. --The1exile - Talk - Contribs 16:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Request for feedback

Hello - would someone with more knowledge on the subject look at The Order (group) and the related David Lane & Robert Jay Mathews entries and decide if this group and the individuals involved meet the amorphous criteria of domestic terrorists? There has been some contention about the matter over at Talk:David Lane. These entries have a "fan base" and The Order & Robert Jay Mathews are pure starry-eyed fancruft at the moment. David Lane is tagged with the terrorist category, but the other two are not. I argued that David Lane meets the criteria, but now I am bowing to the experts on the subject to determine if this is an accurate representation. WeniWidiWiki 23:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Jean Charles de Menezes??!!

He's no terrorist! It was a mistake! Keep up with the times, man! Foriegners shouldn't add someone that they don't know everything about! They should ask here! --NatovR 16:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Khodov

Replaced "stub" with "good" - acknowledging how much work was spent on this. The main problem remaining is when his brother was released from prison. Various reports clash with the version of Der Spiegel. User:Pan_Gerwazy--pgp 23:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Operation Enduring Freedom

I have started work on OEF articles. There was talk by a user of wanting to merge OEF into Afghan war so I began to expand the article to show its more then just Afghanistan that its related to. I am currently looking for OEF-HOA, Horn of Africa, related information so I can begin an article on that, currently just have some senate reports about it. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 14:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Yea, that merge is unecessary considering OEF was more than Afghanistan, I will try to help out there. Rangeley 14:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Waziristan War

We could clean this one up a bit more, its pretty sparse as is. Rangeley 02:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I will take a look at it tomorrow if my work load is light. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 02:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I have some information regarding captures AQ members, high ranking people. Just do not know how to put it in or format it. I will throw the links here and a summary, trying to avoid creating a massive timeline.

• [1] - USAToday - May 4th, 2005
  • Pakistani commandos capture Abu Faraj al-Libbi after a raid outside the town of Mardan, 30 miles north of Peshwar. Abu Farraj al-Libbi was a high ranking al-Qaeda official, rumored to be 3rd after Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri. al-Libbi replaced Khalid Shaikh Mohammed after his arrest in March of 2003 in connection with the September 11th attacks. The Pakistani government arrested al-Libbi and held him on charges in relation to being a chief planner in two assassination attempts on the life of President Pervez Musharraf in December 2003.

• [2] - CNN - April 1st, 2002
  • The Saudi born Zayn al-Abidn Muhammed Hasayn Abu Zubaydah was arrested by Pakistani officials during a series of joint US and Pakistan raids during the week of March 23, 2002. During the raid the suspect was shot three times while trying to escape capture by military personnel. Zubaydah is said to be a high ranking al-Qaeda official with the title of operations chief and in charge of running al-Qaeda training camps.

• [3] - CNN - March 1st, 2003
  • Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was arrested during CIA-led raids on the suburd of Rawalpindi, nine miles outside of the Pakistan capital of Islamabad. Mohammed at the time of his capture was the third highest ranking official in al-Qaeda and directly in charge of the planning for the September 11th attacks. Escaping capture the week before during a previous raid, the Pakistani government was able to use information gathered from other suspects captured to locate and detain Mohammed. Mohammed was indicted in 1996 by the United States government for links to the "Manilla air conspiracy", a plot to bomb a series of U.S. civilian airliners. Other events Mohammed has been linked to include; ordering the killing of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, USS Cole bombing, Richard Reids attempt to blow up a civilian airliner with a shoe bomb, the terrorist attack at the El Ghriba synagogue in Djerba, Tunisia. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed has described himself as the head of the al-Qaeda military committee.

• [4] - Pavda - September 14th, 2002
  • Ramzi Binalshibh was arrested in Pakistan after a three-hour gunfight with police forces. Binalshibh is known to have shared a room with Mohammad Atta in Hamburg, Germany and to be a financial backer of al-Qaeda operations. It is said Binalshibh was suppose to be another hijacker, however the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services] rejected his visa application three times, leaving him to the role of financier. The trail of money transffered from Binalshibh in Germany to the United States links both to Mohammad Atta and to Zacarias Moussaoui.

I added all this to the Waziristan article under a section titled Success, and rearranged it to be chronologically correct. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 18:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Terrorism

Were you all aware of this pre-existing (January '06) WikiProject? Your scope seems a little more expansive than theirs. Anyway, go take a look. GRBerry 03:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

AFD Relisted for more input

Pasban e Islam has been nominated for deletion. Reading the article and the one substantive comment on the AFD, the organization has been associated with terrorism. The AFD has been relisted for more input, and I thought you might be a group in good position to give more input and or improve the article to address the nominators concerns. GRBerry 22:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Added my voice of support for the article, also threw it on my own backburner of things to google around and see if I can find any more information to add in the near future. Much thanks for the heads-up :) Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 22:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Terrorism and counter-terrorism

This is a newly formed project with a more expansive scope. They've decided to target anything that can be categorized at Category:Terrorism or it's subcategories. Take a look. GRBerry 03:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Comprehensive effort

This appears to be a comprehensive effort to help articles dealing with this important subject. I am also interested in this area, especially in counterterrorism and links between terror organizations and state-sponsors. Since I do not know my way around the project yet, I would like to ask a few questions. Under what category is the War on Terrorism article found? Is there a category under counterterrorism for the Operation Iraqi Freedom documents article? Is there a category suitable for the Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda article? I have not looked yet, but there should be an article on Hezbollah and al-Qaeda. Is there a category for articles that discuss the relationship between terror organizations? Thanks for helping me find my way around. RonCram 12:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Ziad Jarrah

Ziad Jarrah is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 22:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Al-Manar

Me and some other editors have been creating this article and would like help and think it should be part of the project. Is it ok for me to add the terrorism project template on the talk page of the article? I have just joined today.Hypnosadist 15:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales highly recommended ...

Jimbo Wales highly recommended to delete the article about the SPK and all links to the Wikipedia-project terrorism. See our recent Boston meeting, see the juridical proceedings of SPK against Wikipedia.

I assume you mean "delete reference to the SPK article in this project", not deleting the actual article itself. Assuming that's what you mean, I actually agree with you, I had removed it myself once already while tidying up the main page since it didn't seem to fit within the scope at all. Let's give it a week, and see if we can get (non-votestacked) 75% consensus to remove it. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 12:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I made no recommendation about this article. The anon ip number should be ignored.--Jimbo Wales 23:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Attempted Bombing in Germany

Should we create an article of these attempted bombings of trains in germany. [5] Hypnosadist 23:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposed merger of projects

Considering that the two projects have a significant amount of overlap, I was wondering whether the members of this project would consider merging the project with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Terrorism and counter-terrorism. Badbilltucker 23:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay by me. LDH 09:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 22:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Timeline of terrorism

Hello,

I hope I'm not taking up too much of everyones time, however, a few months ago I was working on a timeline of terrorist activities based on the same format as my other timeline's on organized crime, piracy and the American Wild West. While it was unfortunatly nominated for deletion due to concerns regarding its encyclopedic worth, it was restored on my user page where I had begun working on putting entries in to more specific timeslines (see Timeline of the Irish Republican Army) and I was curious if this might be of any help to the project ? The original timeline was compiled from the following references, with exception to information from the official United Nations and Interpol websites:

• Crenshaw, Martha and John Pimlott, ed. Encyclopedia of World Terrorism. Armonk, NY: Sharpe Reference, 1997. ISBN 1-56324-806-9
• Kushner, Harvey. Encyclopedia of Terrorism. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc., 2003 ISBN 0-7619-2408-6
• Henderson, Harry. Terrorism. New York: Facts On File Inc., 2001. ISBN 0-8160-4259-4
• Mickolus, Edward F. and Susan L. Simmons. Terrorism, 1996-2001: a chronology. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2002. ISBN 0-313-31785-2
• Sawinski, Diane and Matthew May. Terrorism: Biographies. Farmington Hills, MI: Gale Group Inc., 2003. ISBN 0-7876-6567-3

I've also been working on missing topics lists based on these specific books as well, it it would be any help to the project in the future. MadMax 04:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The 9/11 article is in bad shape

Myself and several others have tried to make September 11, 2001 attacks more encyclopedic but there has been considerble resistance from a group of people 'guarding' the POV of the article. The opening paragraph uses the word 'terrorist' in the editorial voice. I don't care if it has a citation - it's written as the opinion of wikipedia and wikipedia is not supposed to have an opinion. Words like 'massacred' and 'murdered' are used instead of the neutral 'killed'.

The editors camping out the article simply cannot see their own bias. Something needs to be done there. Damburger 12:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Well I've removed the "massacred" comment, and left a talk-page comment about the "murdered" comments - I'm sorry to agree with you that the article is a mish-mash of conspiracy theorists, terrorist-haters and editorialists. ("Some people believe 9/11 changed the world forever...", etc)

Personally I'm always in favour of "less is more" on these gigantic articles, and prefer to break it down into Psychiatric evaulations of Sherurcij's rampage, Fatalities from Sherurcij's rampage and Criticisms of the official reaction to Sherurcij's rampage when we're dealing with something like this. :Unfortunately, these "camped" editors do more harm than good - I still consider the Beslan Hostage Crisis to be a sad pinnacle of how quickly an article's quality can deteriorate. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 05:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 23:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC) {{Terrorist organisations active in India}}

WikiProject Crime

I've been asking around on various crime and criminology related WikiProjects concerning a proposal for WikiProject Crime and, if the project gains support, weither members of WikiProject Terrorism and other projects would be interested in forming a Portal:Crime in order to organize and coordinate overlapping crime and criminology related projects ? MadMax 21:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Lone wolf (terrorism)

I've done my best to help this article, and I thought I'd draw attention to it from other editors. It still needs help. --Saswann 18:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Project Megiddo

I tagged Project Megiddo with this Project--what else needs to be done? I wasn't sure if this or the general Terror project would be better, either... thoughts? F.F.McGurk 21:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Campaignbox

Canal Hotel Bombing
Location	Baghdad, Iraq
Date	August 19, 2003
Target	United Nations headquarters
Attack type	Car bomb
Deaths	22
Injured	100+
Perpetrators	al-Qaeda

See this proposal for a terrorist campaign box under the terror attack infobox. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 23:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

New article

I'm creating a new article 2007 Plot to Behead a British Muslim Soldier. Hypnosadist 00:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Ooh, nice - I'll try to give a hand. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 05:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Note: Article has been merged into a preexisting one on the subject. KazakhPol 06:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terrorism in Kazakhstan

Two users, or possibly one, Aaliyah Stevens and Cs, tried to delete Terrorism in Kazakhstan. The AFD failed (66% voted in favor of keeping it), but they have effectively refused to accept the community's consensus. Cs has moved the page to "Potential for Terrorism in Kazakhstan." I find this title and other edits to this page by these two users to be ridiculous. Opinions on what the title of the article should be (on Talk:Potential for Terrorism in Kazakhstan) are welcomed. KazakhPol 03:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Bad Info on Page

Somebody may want to check out List of terrorist attacks in Canada - it looks like it's been vandalized. Last modified 13:23, 19 March 2007.

It's been a while since I read up on the subject, but I don't recall Orlando Bosch being "a extremely radical homosexal activist", among other gems.

I'd do it myself, but I don't have the time to do the research to do it right.

--161.203.16.1 18:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC) Pete

Template listing terror groups active in India

Hello everyone, I'll glad to have suggestions on improving the template listing terrorist groups active in india LegalEagle 10:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Newsletter

There has been some recent discssion of a crime related Wikipedia newsletter based on a collaberation of the various WikiProjects such as WP:CRIME, WP:BRITCRIME, ect. and I was wondering if WikiProject Terrorism might be interested in working on such a project ? MadMax 12:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Infobox terrorist organization

I've been trying to track down the "sponsor" for "Infobox terrorist organization", but without success (cf. Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam) to resolve an issue concerning an unclear entry line. I'd appreciate it if someone could point me to the right place. TIA, Askari Mark (Talk) 05:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Good source to use

If anyone is seeking a good source for which to expand articles in this project, there is a book I have recently read about halfway through called "Al Qaeda in Europe" it goes into several plots, members, other events and more. I am bringing this up because I have noticed a lot of stubs and I think this book would prove to be a great source.

comedy_watcher 17:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds useful, haven't seen it in bookstores around here myself - but I'll keep an eye out. Feel free to bookmark a few pages with particularly interesting members and create new articles on them (and keep us updated and we'll try to help find more information)

Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 17:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Scope of project?

Right now I believe that the project is the only one in the field which clearly deals with terrorism which does article assessment. Would the rest of you favor broadening the scope of the project to include all articles directly relating to terrorism and related issues, like maybe the articles in the Category:Terrorism, so that these articles could be assessed and included within its scope? John Carter 13:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I favor that --TheFEARgod (Ч) 20:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Recent inclusion of Hamas

I thought this was only about non-state terrorism. Isn't Hamas part of an elected government? Although it is accurate to say that Palestine is not currently a state. Organ123 17:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Rename project to "Non-state terrorism"

I see that there's been a lot of discussion above about the issue of state terrorism. I am also uncomfortable with the notion of a terrorism project that excludes states. Therefore I think that this project should be renamed something like "Non-state terrorism" to be more precise. Organ123 17:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

As per the discussion above about broadening the scope of the project, given that this project is to date the only one doing assessments, with new collabortion and peer review units (not yet really active, trying to do assessments first), I at least proposed that the project expand its scope to deal with the entire Category:Terrorism, with at least one other member of the project having agreed to it. I hadn't yet made changes to the page itself, though, although I guess I should have done that first. Would you, as an individual, have any objections to such a broadening of the project's scope? John Carter 17:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I would not object to broadening the project to mirroring the scope of Category:Terrorism. That would negate the need to change the project to "Non-state terrorism". Organ123 18:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Terrorism Portal?

I know that interest in the subject has somewhat waned recently from the heights it reached earlier, but I wonder whether the rest of you think that there would be any interest in creating a portal for terrorism articles. If not, if you could list below which portals you think would be most relevant to this project, I would appreciate it very much. John Carter 18:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

MASSIVE Expansion of Scope

I was alerted to this project's widening scope when one of my watchlisted pages (Contras) was tagged. At first, I suspected that this was a politically motivated tagging, but after reviewing the wide variety of groups and individuals that have recently been added, I am reassured that this was not the case. I still don't like it, but I've decided that I'll live with it as long as there is political parity, and the Sandinista National Liberation Front is also bannered.

This isn't a baseless demand for artificial equivalency. You already cover Dawson's Field, and while the Patrick Argüello entry casts doubt on his status with the FSLN at the time of the hijacking, it also makes it clear that after the revolution, Sandinista leaders were happy to retrospectively bring him back into the fold, naming a geothermal plant after him; the article also shows the poster with his portrait and the trademark Sandino hat, linking the Sandinista and Palestinian struggles. There is also no ambiguity about the FSLN's connections to hijackings like the one in 1970 of a Costa Rican airliner, numerous Symbionese-style robberies, the 1974 Christmas party raid, and the 1978 seizure of the National Palace. You've included groups that have done less.

I suspect that I'm not the only one upset by your classifications, and you might also want to rewrite your banner to say that while this topic has been linked to terrorism by some, this classification might be controversial, and should not be considered definitive. You might even be better off linking to the definition of terrorism page rather than directly to the terrorism article.

Note that I still think the expansion of this project was a bad idea, and that I disagree with a lot of these additions. Numerous groups that would most helpfully be thought of as guerrillas rather than terrorists, including not just those I sympathize with but leftists like Colombia's FARC, are included. I don't think the Covenant, Sword, and Arm of the Lord, which may have had unpleasant beliefs but never did anything and surrendered without firing a shot, should be included. I think it would be better for you to include neither the contras or the Sandinistas. But if you're going to be overly broad in your scope, at least be evenhanded in your injudiciousness.

As an aside, I also don't think "Contras" should be a B-class article. I wrote on the Central American project's Assessment talk page that "I think the article is in terrible shape, and I have to consider an article about rebels that doesn't say anything about the course of the war to be lacking something basic." But this isn't my WikiProject, and I'll let you draw your own conclusions. --Groggy Dice T | C 00:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The project's scope is still limited to the Category:Terrorism and its subcategories or on of the lists included directly in the Category:Terrorism. So far, I haven't actually added any articles to those categories, as I'm still assessing and tagging articles, but that certainly is something that will be done later. I haven't yet seen whether the Sandinista National Liberation Front is included in any of those categories, as I'm still tagging and assessing articles. I don't think I've seen it yet however. The only real "expansion" has been acknowledging that it is probably really "iffy" to declare that any organization lacks state support from some state or other, and that on that basis the prior parameters were probably going to be at least potentially qualify as original research. Certainly, if anyone wants to change categorizations, by adding or subtracting from the article's categories, they are free to do so. Regarding The Covenant, The Sword, and the Arm of the Lord, it is included in the List of designated terrorist organizations, so I think on that basis it's inclusion can be seen as being reasonable. Regarding the rating for the Contras, I was (unfortunately) following the Central America assessment there, more or less taking them at their word. I can see how it might qualify as a low B, given the amount of material, but will make a more thorough assessment upon the completion of the tagging of this article, and all the others that haven't yet been assessed. If you should have any further questions, specifically regarding either categorization or inclusion or non-inclusion of given articles, please feel free to comment here and I'll certainly do all I can to review the matters, and, with luck, provide a reasonable response. John Carter 00:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem with using that list is that it constantly changes as groups are added or removed according to the political and ideological proclivities of its editors, as a look through its history will attest. I looked at the list when the Contras were added, and decided the whole list was such junk that it wasn't worth messing with. For instance, the anti-Castro section seems to include every anti-Castro group, regardless of its methods. What did Brigade 2506 do besides mount an essentially conventional amphibious invasion? Some veterans may have gone on to do terroristic acts later (like McVeigh served in the US Army), but the Brigada itself wasn't terrorist.

Maybe I should have been more active and taken the Contras off the list, but I figured it would just start an edit-war. Besides, I wanted to be fair to all guerrilla movements and not just to my pet groups, and the inclusion criteria didn't let me do that. Guerrilla groups like the FARC do get designated as terrorists by the US government for political reasons, so technically they meet the criteria. --Groggy Dice T | C 06:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I largely agree that the project has gained too much scope, one can say that Black September was a terrorist action, without having to say the Sandinistas or Contras were terrorists - the more groups we bring into the fold, the less likely anybody will ever actually go through our list and work on the articles. Soon the Einsatzgruppen will be listed at this rate, honestly. I'm just having trouble deciding on how exactly to narrow the scope, only to biographies of terrorists? only to articles dealing with specific terrorist attacks? I don't know. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 06:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC) (founder of the project)

Actually, from personal experience, if we also include assessment of importance to the project, which is more difficult but still possible, it would probably be the case that MORE, not less, people would be interested in working on the articles which are of greater importance to the subject. The less important articles, for instance, dealing with an inactive member of a group accused of "terrorism" by the repressive government they were trying to overturn, would probably be no less likely than it currently is to get edited if the article were listed as lower importance. Many projects really only do importance assessments for the articles of Top or High importance to the project, and the same could be done here. Personally, I think the best way to ensure that all the content, including those articles about subjects possibly falsely accused of terrorism, is to bring all such content within the scope of a single project, so that interested editors can have a quicker way to access all such content. Also, there is now the {{Terrorism?}} template, which can be used to help determine if an article relating to a subject whose qualifications as terrorist are at best dubious can be examined to see if it can fairly be described as "terrorist". John Carter 14:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree that Contras should be part of this project. I believe they wore uniforms as required by the Geneva Convention and otherwise subscribed to its tenets. They were not unlawful combatants. They did not melt back into the population. They did not indiscrimately target civilians. In short, pretty much like the American revolutionaries who did pretty much the same. (I guess I'd better check to see if they're on the list too!).Student7 (talk) 22:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

American Indian Movement = Terrorists?

Wow. The Terrorism Portal is being added to some articles that have nothing to do with terrorism. Based on what criteria was this portal added to American Indian Movement? The word terrorism appears nowhere in the article and any assertion that AIM was a terrorist organization would be highly POV. They weren't even guerrillas. - N1h1l 03:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Based on the fact that it is included in the List of designated terrorist organizations. The banner has now been adjusted to include reference to "allegations of terrorism", which at the very least inclusion in such a list constitutes. Also, another banner is being created to assist in determining which of these entities and people qualify as being "terrorist". John Carter 13:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Given the failure to specify the "notable organization" that has designated AIM terrorist, I suspect that the inclusion on List of designated terrorist organizations constitutes original research. - N1h1l 04:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I've added the relevant cites. It was the FBI that labeled AIM as an "extremist" organization because of the "terrorist" bombings, etc.Verklempt 23:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

For what little it's worth, I would suggest that, unless they used the word "terrorist" or an equivalent they may not deserve to be on the list. "Extremist" doesn't mean the same as "terrorist". However, if they did refer to "terrorist" bombings, then I think that that use of the word would probably be sufficient for inclusion. John Carter 13:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

No not terrorists, why? they are not designated as such by the US government and no members have been convicted of terrorist crimes in a court. Terrorist is not the same as strong political views or groups that perform political civil disobedience. 17:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

If the source which indicated they were involved in "other terrorist activity" can be specified, and if, as indicated, the US federal government did describe at least some of their actions as being "terrorist", then I guess the question is does a group which engages in activity specifically described as "terrorist" by that area's government qualify as a "terrorist" group? Personally, I would think yes, as I'm no big fan of splitting hairs, but I would need to see the specific citation first. I would welcome any responses to the question above, however, as I think the question may well arise in a variety of other instances as well. John Carter 17:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

It would take me a while to get the relevant source on AIM back, since I got it originally through inter-library loan. But there is no point in my retrieving the source until we sort out the definitional issue. Here it is: Does a group that has been accused of terrorist acts, but has not been explicitly labeled as a terrorist group, qualify for inclusion here? I would say yes--the acts being more significant than the label. In the case of AIM, it is true that no members were convicted of the bombings. However, there is court testimony that the bombs were made and planted by Dave Hill, Leonard Peltier, and Anna Mae Aquash, and this is generally acknowledged as correct within the movement.Verklempt 19:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Definition of "terrorism"

It honestly hadn't occurred to me that there would be significant emotional response to the adding of the project banner, for which I apologize. I have created a rough beginning template based on one of the Fascism WikiProject, {{Terrorism?}}, which seeks to determine whether the subject qualifies as "terrorist". I am aware that it could use some work, particularly on phrasing, and would welcome any reasonable additions to it. John Carter 14:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Talk page template

The image on the talk page template for this wikiproject has now been changed twice. Do we have consensus for a particular image yet?--Sefringle^Talk 18:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Not even close, sorry to say. I misread the histories and got the mistaken impression the project was basically inactive, and tried to start reviving it. Evidently I was in error, and I apologize. John Carter 20:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

It should be changed again. A template on terrorism in general should not have the logo of one specific organization. Spylab 21:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

As the one who changed it, I technically agree with you - logos are a bad idea. Previously we had the "iconic" image of the Munich hostagetaker leaning over the balcony (but it was copyrighted), and then a group of three black-clad Basques (I believe?) giving a press conference from a distance (just not a clear image at all, press conferences aren't exactly terrorism). If possible I'd love to avoid using a September 11 image as it is "overplayed" in many people's perception of the history of terrorism...but at the same time, something like the King David bombings isn't going to be a very iconic or recognisable image. I'd definitely love to see some suggestions though. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 22:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Hindutva terrorism

Hi, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hindutva terrorism. deeptrivia (talk) 04:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Please add it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Terrorism--Sefringle^Talk 04:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. deeptrivia (talk) 05:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

List of designated terrorist organizations

I've added a proposal at Talk:List of designated terrorist organizations#Suggestions to improve this list in order to improve this vital list (especially nowadays) and get it to FL status. Your opinion is welcomed. Thank you. CG 14:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Improving the definition of terrorism and terrorist groups

Does a group that has been accused of terrorist acts, but has not been explicitly labeled as a terrorist group, qualify for inclusion here? I would say yes--the acts being more significant than the label. Examples of these borderline cases might include American Indian Movement and Haganah. Neither of these organizations had terrorism as an official policy or as a central strategy. Both organizations contained a number individual members who engaged in unquestionably terrorist actions.Verklempt 04:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Personally I'd disagree, but then make sure to create specific articles about the specific members of those groups who carried out those attacks, or for the attacks themselves, depending on the nature of the incident. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 05:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Respectfully, your response does not move us closer to defining the border between terrorist and non-terrorist groups. Most terrorist groups will not self-ID as terrorist. They see themselves as freedom fighters. Instead, they are IDed by outside observers as terrorist. Outside observers are generally not objective. So the question remains, how many terrorist actions must be carried out by a group's members for us to take seriously the terrorist label for this group. It is a very difficult question, and I don't think there is an easy answer.Verklempt 05:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

If a member of the US Army, or the Royal Air Force, or somesuch, commit a "terrorist action targeting civilians", should we label the group as "terrorist"? No, of course not - I feel it's a ridiculous claim to make, we do not believe in guilt by association - you cannot judge an entire group of people off a single incident by a single person in the group. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 09:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the the points above on both sides. That's one of the reasons why I tried to create the {{Terrorism?}}. What I think would be the best way to go personally would be to include any organization which has been labelled as being "terrorist" by the locally relevant government, or whose actions have been labelled as terrorist by that same government. In this way, we do not ourselves try to define terrorism, but simply to address the subject in as neutral a way as possible. Also, I agree that if a low-level hanger-on of a group were to commit an act labelled as terrorist, than it would make sense to call that individual a terrorist, but maybe not the group s/he belonged to if the action did appear to be not substantively approved and assisted by the group. If the leaders of a group were involved in a terrorist incident, though, that could reasonably be seen as being cause to say that their group were "terrorist" in some form or other. Anyway, my two cents. John Carter 14:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

After a suggestion with no replies at Category talk:Terrorists#Avoid self-reference in terrorist definition, I have added {{Terrorist definition}} to 35 categories which contained an inappropriate self reference to Wikipedia. Note: I am not in this WikiProject and don't edit terrorist articles but just noticed the self references and fixed them. Maybe the template should be added to all terrorist subcategories for consistency but I don't expect to do more work regarding this template. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Rock Springs massacre

Hello everyone. The article Rock Springs massacre, while not tagged by this project probably or maybe falls within its scope. It is a current Featured article candidate, if anyone here has the time comments would be appreciated after reviewing the featured article criteria and comparing those to the article. You can see its entry and participate in the discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rock Springs massacre. This message is an attempt to jumpstart lagging discussion, talk page posts on WikiProject pages which have tagged the article went unnoticed as the three projects are less than active at this juncture. Thanks ahead of time. IvoShandor 09:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Even as a native English speaker, I had trouble with "roundly panned", I'd suggest a minor reword on that section. I saw a couple places I wanted to throw {{fact}} tags as well, that I'll put up in the morning - not because I doubt the article's authors - as it seems to be a very NPOV article, but just for the sake of posterity, there were a few comments that should've had a citation. Great work, hope to see if featured! Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 10:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, I reworded the sentence you pointed out. Please feel free to voice your support on the candidates page. Feel free to add the fact tags as I am certain the reference is already nearby and will not be difficult for me to add. : ) IvoShandor 10:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Iraq Resolution

RFC for a POV dispute. Help us out! Isaac Pankonin 05:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Please consider whether there is any rule in WP prohibiting the use of extensively sourced material and if such is POV. Further, if this user's invitation violates WP:CANVAS please remove the invitation. As involved party I will not do that.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 11:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Current arrests in Germany

Does anyone know if there is an article about the current arrests in germany (and denmark), if so what is it called? If not do editors think it should be started? ^{(Hypnosadist)} 09:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Found it myself so here it is German Terror Plot 9/07. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 09:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Tried to help the German article grow out a bit, it still needs a great deal of work though - seems to be an interesting case though. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 18:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I've changed all of the references into cite news form. Also, can somebody try and bring all of the external links into the main section of the article, so that it can have a bit more depth from the external links references. I would do it, but am not that familiar with the subject. Davnel03 16:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Goals

You know, there are two possible ways for this project to be viewed:

1. You are here to inform the readers about terrorism
2. You are here to insert the word "terrorism" into every article you touch

Your goal should be the former, not the latter because the latter approach asserts no new facts. Sadly, too often the effect is simply latter, and that to insert the word "terrorism" as many times as possible. You should strive for details and a variety in your vocabulary because the T-word becomes very quickly both boring and uninformative.--Onomato 07:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion: rename this project

From what I can make out, 'terrorism' is a word used to describe irregular warfare that, from the point of view of the speaker, is not legitimate. As legitimacy is defined in terms that are specific to a particular morality or legal system, the term is always indicative of a point of view. The result is that we have a project that may as well be called 'WikiProject Bad Violence'.

That said- paramilitaries, special forces, popular rebellions and so on, are all worthy of study. So let's rename this project something like 'WikiProject Irregular Warfare' and skip the bit where we decide who are the good guys and who are the bad guys in every conflict and violent action.

I came across this WikiProject when I was looking at the page 8888 Uprising. Wow, so a popular uprising against an oppressive military junta is considered terrorism, yet French Resistance is not. Well fancy that. Who's operating the morality meter today? There are neutral ways to describe these kind of groups and actions that are more specific than 'terrorism' and that do not reveal the writer's approval or disapproval.

Anyone have any suggestions for what alternative names we could use rather than terrorism? Mascus 09:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I sugest Marcus go read up on the lenghty discussion that was held in the talk page of the 9/11 attacks article. We went over the 'terrorist' word in length, and consensus was reached that the word was just fine to be used. --Tarage 03:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the name of this project will make the project inherently problematic. I would suggest renaming the project something to represent both the supporters and detractors of certain organizations such as WikiProject Terrorism and Irregular Warfare or WikiProject Terrorism and Freedom Fighters. Otherwise, the mere categorization of a page within this project will be subject to debate. Remember 00:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• Rename. Tarage, there have been other long discussions on terrorism. See for example Wikipedia:Use of the word terrorism (policy development). The problem with the term is highlighted in Terrorism#Pejorative use. To cherry pick several points from that article section. Do you think that now that America has suffered several large terrorist attacks that any part of the American government would support the findings in the Quinn v. Robinson case? Should Menachem Begin and Nelson Mandela be described as former terrorists and recipients of the Nobel peace prize? As it says in WP:TERRORIST "Extremism and terrorism are pejorative terms. They are words with intrinsically negative connotations that are generally applied to one's enemies and opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and whose opinions and actions one would prefer to ignore." Given the problems of systemic bias that we have in this encyclopaedia, I agree with the others that the project should be renamed. --Philip Baird Shearer —Preceding comment was added at 11:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Terrorism is a means to an end, it does not speak to the value of the end. So, people with laudable goals and who win the nobel peace prize can still be terrorists. Identifying someone as a terrorist doesn't mean he was a bad man, just that he used terroristic methods without proper justification under international law. The issue gets a little cloudy when the accused claims a necessity defense (I had to kill the dictator to stop him from executing the innocent), but it should be possible to sort this out in many cases. We don't have to just throw up our hands and say its so subjective that we can never determine whether an act, person or organization is terroristic.Werchovsky (talk) 00:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Casualties of the Turkey-PKK conflict

This article has a number of issues. It's basically just a list of attacks, many of which are unreferenced, and I assume the list is not and will never be complete. For example, it lists many Turkish military casualties but very few PKK casualties, and I would assume there should be more. I think it should either be something much shorter like "so far, X number of Turkish military and Y number of PKK fighters have been killed since..." or maybe take that section out altogether, since it would be hard to find those numbers accurately. The article could even be deleted, as it doesn't serve much purpose now. If some people could take a look I'd appreciate it. --AW 17:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but this is incredibly hard to tell. It was a 30+ year conflict, with over 30,000 dead civilians I believe (civilian casualties that are approximated) that are caused by the PKK. The military does not reveal that much information, like number of casualties etc. A lot of times, they physically cannot, because it is a result of bombings or artillery attacks. This is like trying to tell casualties caused and received by U.S. military in Iraq. The PKK terrorists use the same tactics as Hezbollah, Hamas, and Al-Qaeda except that they usually do not suicide, but that has happened as well. Sometimes they like to go down in a blaze of fire, such as the many police station raids they conducted and usually those are the events that are reported by the Media. However, it would take a lot of work to get many accurate readings. So I think it's best to keep reports of PKK terrorism activities, and just because it isn't sourced doesn't mean it didn't happen, but someone should verify. — ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 06:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

RFC on 1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack

• We have a Request for Comment at Talk:1984_Rajneeshee_bioterror_attack#Request_for_Comment, and your input would be appreciated. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 22:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC).
  • Please disregard this above request. I removed the "Request for Comment". Thanks. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 00:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC).

Islamic terrorism

There is a discussion in Talk:Islamic terrorism#Article Title. Please participate in it and help us to achieve consensus. --Seyyed(t-c) 16:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad_Bashmilah

Are Muhammad_Bashmilah and Mohamed Farag Ahmad Bashmilah the same person? Also, Muhammad_Bashmilah needs a new title since it refers to three people not just one (there were previously three copies of the article, one at each name.) —Random832 21:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

merged Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 21:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Peer review notice

1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack is on Peer Review. Your comments would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Peer review/1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack. Cirt (talk) 02:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC).

Shining Path GA Sweeps Review: On Hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I have left this message at this project's talk page so that any interested members can assist in helping the article keep its GA status. I'm specifically going over all of the "World History-Americas" articles. I have reviewed Shining Path and believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. Please consider helping address the several points that I listed on the talk page of the article, which shouldn't take too long to fix. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 19:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Newsletter

time to revive the 2 year old newsletter? Some active admins for the project canget a bot to do it.(Lihaas (talk) 03:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)).

Newsletter

can we resserect the newsletter now dead for over 2 years. this seems to beone of the more active projcts so that would help cleaning up such article.(Lihaas (talk) 13:17, 20 January 2011 (UTC)).

RFC at al-Shabaab

A quick tip off: There's an RFC that's relevant to this project at talk:al-Shabaab#Somaliland RFC. --Copper button 19:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Terror

I noticed that the Terror article has recently been created. In connection to that, I would like to know the opinion of the project's community about the need in such an article and its potential scope. Thank you in advance.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_April_8#File:Logo_of_Lashkar-e-Taiba.png

All opinions welcome. ^walk victor falk ^talk 10:05, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

FAR

I have nominated Abu Musab al-Zarqawi for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dana boomer (talk) 15:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Pakistan Naval Station Mehran attack

This is a current event, and i am surprised that no one has of now began working on the article. Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 15:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Ayman Al-Zawahiri.jpg

Image:Ayman Al-Zawahiri.jpg has been flagged for deletion, as it has the wrong permissions templates. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 06:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Remove News International phone hacking scandal from WP Terrorism

I noticed the article on the News International phone hacking scandal is part of WP Terrorism. I think it's outside the scope of the project, and would like to remove the tag. Any thoughts? (Also, if there's a more formal way for me to do this than on this talk page, please let me know. I'm new to being a part of a wiki project). Thanks!Gee totes (talk) 02:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed with your action. The phone hacking is a government scandal, it is most definitely not terrorism. Whoever originally added the template was severely mistaken. Silverseren^C 02:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)