Talk:Terror

Terror needs to be cleaned up

Formatting is shot to heck. Also some links in terror don't seem to logically match up. Amarao 15:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "definition" given in the first few lines of this disambig page is a definition of "terrorism", and probably shouldn't be used for the root word terror. I've changed it to a brief bit about the simplest meaning of the word. --Mr. Billion 07:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No definition of the word given. 20:09, 27.11.2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.144.153.172 (talk) 17:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Political terror

Disambiguation of Soviet terror to terrorism (ex. [1]) is hardly correct. Soviet terror meant widescale political repression, but not terrorism as we understand it (when state kills their own citizens, it hardly terrorism - ex. Nazi terror = Holocaust was not terrorism). This can be further disambiguated for some countries, ex. Political repression in the Soviet Union. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 12:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be correct to disambiguate this use to state terrorism or state-sponsored terrorism? Otherwise, the only other choice would be to point to Wiktionary:terror. Frankly, these links can be disambiguated any way you like--whatever you think is most useful. They simply shouldn't point to the disambiguation page, which is not helpful to anyone following the link. Regards--ShelfSkewed Talk 13:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those are good choices, although state terrorism article is in a pretty bad shape. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 13:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it needs some work, but at least state terrorism specifically mentions the Soviet Union of the 1920s and Nazi Germany as examples. Perhaps more links to the article will bring it to the attention of editors who can improve it. In the meantime, I'll go through my "Terror" dabs and fix as many as I can find. Cheers!--ShelfSkewed Talk 13:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Terror definition

Relocated from User talk:ShelfSkewed#Terror

I agree that dab pages are not the place for article material or extended dictionary definitions, but Terror is not a dab page. It is a standard entry that has a general definition and is used more specifically in other contexts. --Danbur (talk) 15:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a dab page? Yes it is, and has been for quite some time and is categorized as such. It is not the case that all disambiguation pages use the (disambiguation) clarifier. If you think the concept of terror requires a separate article, apart from the discussions in fear or horror and terror, then you should move the dab page to Terror (disambiguation), although this will require a WP:RM. But the lengthy article-like material does not belong on top of the dab page as it stands.--ShelfSkewed Talk 15:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

dab pages are specified as dab pages in the title. Terror has never been a dab page. If you would like a Terror dab page, please feel free to start one. I will not be starting one because I do not believe that one is necessary. There is only one definition of terror and many contexts. --Danbur (talk) 15:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can only repeat that you are mistaken: Some disambiguation pages do include the (disambiguation) clarifier, some do not. This one does not, but it is a disambiguation page nonetheless. Please consult WP:MOSDAB for information about the function and format of disambiguation pages.--ShelfSkewed Talk 16:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to force your will on everyone else in order to get your way. If you want a disambiguation page, simply start one. You don't need to hijack this article. The word Terror has a meaning different than any of the articles it references. The concept cannot be accurately described through redirection alone. If terror' meant the same as fear there would have been no reason for anyone to coin a new word. It does not mean the same as fear or any other single term. It is a unique concept. --Danbur (talk) 16:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need to start a dab page--Terror already is one, as I've said, and you can't simply decide to build an article on top of it. My suggestion to you was that, if you believe the concept of terror deserves its own article, and you think it should be at the title "Terror", then the current disambiguation page will need to be moved to Terror (disambiguation). If you do not wish to initiate and wait for the move process, then you can certainly start a new article at a new location, perhaps Terror (emotion), or you could add to the Fear article a separate subsection on the topic.--ShelfSkewed Talk 16:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't try to cut off the discussion by making disruptive edits diff. Whether you accept it or not, Terror is a dab page with a long edit history. Again, if you think that it should be relocated to make way for an article on the emotion/general concept of terror, then the page should be moved, along with its edit history through a WP:Requested move.--ShelfSkewed Talk 16:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have undone your edit. Danbur was not acting in bad faith. You have a difference of opinion. It is not conducive to a friendly editing environment to assume bad faith, call his edit disruptive and change it based on that premise. WP:AGF --Doug McCain (talk) 17:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ShelfSkewed, I see from your contribution list that you are now engaging in edit terrorism. I will undo any vindictive edits you commit against the editors of this page. --Doug McCain (talk) 17:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You criticize me for calling an edit "disruptive", but find it acceptable to call me "vindictive" and an "edit terrorist"? I think removing the {{disambig}} template from a longstanding disambiguation page, in the midst of a discussion about the purpose of the page, certainly qualifies as disruption to make a point.--ShelfSkewed Talk 17:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Disambigation "Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving conflicts in Wikipedia article titles that occur when a single term can be associated with more than one topic, making that term likely to be the natural title for more than one article." By itself, the word "terror" refers to only one topic and has one natural page title. We note, in the article, how the concept of terror is employed by the things referencing it, but there is only one concept of "terror." Everything else is a film, book, ideology, band or naval ship based on that root concept.

When all else fails, consider what would be the easiest and most useful for a user of Wikipedia. If someone is looking for an article on "terror," he or she would want to first see the general definition and then more specific instances of that general definition's use. He or she would not want to be limited to a list of only partially related concepts. --Danbur (talk) 16:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In Wikipedia, topic refers to all those things you mention--the general concept as well as things named for it. Reign of Terror (aka The Terror) is a topic, as is Terror (band). And I'm not arguing that the emotion/concept of terror is not, or should not be considered, the primary topic. I'm disputing the way you are going about things. The page Terror, as it now stands, is, love it or hate it, a disambiguation page. It is not good practice to unilaterally decide that it is not one and to write an article on top of the page. Here's how you could go about it: Create a solid referenced article at Terror (emotion). Then, at WP:RM (further instructions for this process can be found there) request that Terror be moved to Terror (disambiguation), and that Terror (emotion) be moved to Terror, as the primary topic for that title. I can't guarantee that things will go your way--other editors will weigh in on the discussion with their comments and opinions--but that's the proper way to go about things.--ShelfSkewed Talk 17:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Terror which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 19:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Terror (politics)#Requested move 18 February 2015 for the result. Andrewa (talk) 16:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 15 January 2019

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

The result of the move request was: page moved. wbm1058 (talk) 04:41, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Terror (disambiguation) → Terror – There has been some back and forth recently over whether this title should point to Fear or the disambiguation page (which it can not do per WP:MALPLACED). Having worked on some of the incoming links, I believe that the disambiguation page should be moved to this title, as ambiguity has grown over the distinction between "terror" as merely an extreme kind of fear, and "terror" as the political tool which serves as the root of Terrorism. bd2412 T 04:11, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support - While this doesn't mean an end to the need to fix incoming links, certainly it seems like there are enough topics on the disambiguation page to at least save people the extra step to see them. Mostly, the value of a synonym as primary redirect is in that it would be commonly used, whereas I think terror (emotion) is often hyperbolic and is better replaced with fear in most prose. The DAB does though need some work to put the more common meanings of the basic word at the top, and maybe cut some bloating. -- Netoholic @ 05:52, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support sensible given 2 major competing meanings In ictu oculi (talk) 09:28, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nomination, Netoholic and In ictu oculi. Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 20:45, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. There are two distinct primary meanings of terror:

The subjective emotion (extreme) fear
The objective policy terror (politics)

The aim of the latter is to induce the former, but they are different concepts. (Terrorism is closely related to both, but is a WP:PTM.) A DAB page is the best solution. Narky Blert (talk) 20:36, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Terrorism is not synonymous with terror, and terror (politics) is far less known than fear. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:32, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I fixed many of the incoming links to the title when it was briefly pointed to the disambiguation page, and there was a fairly even split between those intending terrorism/state terror and those intending fear (with an additional smattering pointing specifically to the Reign of Terror, or to the band, Terror (band)). While I agree that the concept of fear is better known than the political concept of terror, I don't think that "fear" exactly equals "terror", either. One can have a mild fear, or a nagging fear, so terror redirecting to fear is not necessarily that great a match. We could theoretically have an separate article on the concept of terror itself, but no one has written that yet. bd2412 T 15:09, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another historical event, at least as well known as the Reign of Terror, was the Great Terror. Neither had anything to do with terrorism. Narky Blert (talk) 12:52, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support, but I agree with Netoholic. I've tried a clean-up: further work welcome. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:05, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.