Talk:Terrorism in Australia
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Terrorism in Australia is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. | ||
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian crime. | ||
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics. | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
 |
||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. | |
Contents |
[edit] Prod removed
Per precedent of Islamic terrorism—Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidYork71 (talk • contribs)
- 1st, apologies for not informing u. to anyone else (like me:) inclined to re-prod, we're no longer allowed to even if the original author deletes the prod. (i think author once wasn't allowed to remove it)
- i've removed the listing of the iraqi group as it's not about terrorist acts in aust.
- what do you think about renaming to reflect the content of this article. ie the specific group of people charged. (at the moment there isn't any 'Islamic terrorism in Australia'? something about 'lucas height plan' or something similar? ⇒ bsnowball 08:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
the original article included information about islamist terror groups banned in Australia, which has subsequently been removed(?!). So renaming would be a detriment and lose that scopeDavidYork71 09:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- my reasoning was just it's not about terrorism in oz, but about oz foreign affairs. the new tittle isn't much of a fix as it's still only a few ongoing investigations/trials & a hell of a lot of scaremongering. (this last being the angle i'm approaching this from:) so i thought these would be better dealt with as separate articles and/or mentioned in 'oz defence'/'law enforcement' where relevant. see what others think i guess. btw having finished the move, the cited precedent is actually re-directs to the correct term: 'Islamist terrorism', move again? ⇒ bsnowball 11:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] This article needs a lead
An intro is missing from this article. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 14:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- I think I improved this. cygnis insignis 19:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Russell Street Bombing relevance
Was the Russell Street Bombing politically motivated? Andjam (talk) 19:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- And is this the accepted definition of terrorism? cygnis insignis 19:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:ASIO logo.jpg
Image:ASIO logo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 04:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Article title vs content
No sure which is wrong - the title or the content. What I mean, is that people like David Hicks did not commit any acts of terrorism in Australia, yet the article title defines itself that way. Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- I have attemted to write a lead to suit the article's title, and removed content that is not within its scope.cygnis insignis 19:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Suppression order?
Some content was deleted with the claim (since deleted) that there are suppression orders. The content deleted was uncited. Maybe the suppression order has been dropped, but I'm not certain. Any thoughts? Andjam (talk) 13:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- I think this. If factual information from a reliable source is available, and it is appropriate to the subject of this article, it should be included. cygnis insignis 19:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Original Research
An editor (see here) is trying to jam a murder investigation into this article under the guise of "terrorism" using all manner of twisted POV synthesis and original research. Unless a respected reliable source can be found describing this as "terrorism" can be found, it must be kept out as per policy. Prester John (talk) 23:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Terrorism is a highly subjective term, "one man's terrorist is another man's ...". The current articles on this subject are often redirects to less ambiguous titles: Terrorism in ..., The articles named like this are usually in nations with legislation that use the term. I had hoped to find Terrorism in Germany, and its absence is worth noting, because the term has a history that shows the degree of subjectivity in its definition. The legal use of the term in the Third Reich has been discussed in academic literature, almost all the sources I have read denounce their use of the term. If we had an article that listed individuals and groups deemed terrorists by that government or society, it would not present a legal determination or social construct as a 'fact', I expect it would explain the context of the subjective term. I placed the synthesis tag because the references are news articles that mention Australia/ns and terrorism, it needs a reliable source that discusses "Terrorism in Australia" to avoid being original research. If a number of groups and people have been identified as terrorists by a government department, this is what needs to be explained. However, this policy has itself been discussed by authors and journalists - that should be included too. The scope of the article must first be established, any inclusion becomes questionable before this happens. cygnis insignis 04:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Rewrite
I'm rewriting this article to a) reflect the title b) add content and c) try and address some of the issues for this topic. Contact me here or at my talk page should you have comments or questions.Akitora (talk) 05:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- Hicks and Habib don't belong in this article, as they don't fit the definition of terrorism as per the article's introduction or title. i.e. they didn't commit terrorism offences in Australia. Also, the History section includes events that are not generally accepted to be acts of terror. Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- I tend to agree with Socrates. Cedars (talk) 14:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
