Talk:Targeted killing

Note
Lede/intro from en.wikipedia article. -- Cirt (talk) 23:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Change by Ningauble
, agree with this change by, thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 18:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

External links removals
Please keep the External links. They are relevant useful, and of value to the reader. -- Cirt (talk) 21:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * How are the external links useful to the reader for the given quotes? -- Philip Baird Shearer 07:39, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * External links are useful points of further exploration of the subjects and potential sources of quotes. It is entirely appropriate that they be provided here even as they are on the seperate and much larger Wikipedia project. It is no great burden to have a duplication of many links here and at Wikipedia, and can be extremely convenient, and their inclusion has been encouraged here since the earliest year of the project in 2003-2004. ~ Kalki (talk &middot; contributions) 07:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. -- Cirt (talk) 17:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have reservations about including "further readings on the topic" in Theme pages. I would much prefer to keep the focus on the quotes, and not try to become a resource for general education on the topic. That is a function more appropriate to Wikipedia. Wikiquote supports the educational mission, but ought not try to encompass too much of it. ~ Ningauble 21:12, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems we have two users in favor of retaining the External links section, one user who wishes to blank out the entire subsection, and one user who may wish to trim it down a tad bit? -- Cirt (talk) 05:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that in theme articles, external links in an external links section (as opposed to an inline citation for a specific quote) should be limited fairly sharply. Material that supports an encyclopedic understanding of a topic should be in Wikipedia, and that is where we should be directing those wishing to obtain such an understanding. BD2412 T 17:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I can agree that it might be appropriate to exercise a bit more restraint in adding links in theme articles than in articles for specific people or works, but unless the links are clearly spam of little or no value to the project or further investigations I balk at trying to set up exact criteria, and as in most cases, I am far more prone to favor retaining freedoms than constraining them, and let what contentions actually do arise among editors with varying aims or expectations be gradually settled by consensus determinations. ~ Kalki (talk &middot; contributions) 17:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps this list of readings might be reconsidered in light of last year's discussion of "Further reading" sections and the ensuing revision of the policy that Wikiquote is not an encyclopedia. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:37, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I would agree with their removal - if there is something noteworthy in these pages, then they can be quoted here. But simply to have links to essays or articles on the subject is not really appropriate. ~ UDScott (talk) 16:43, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅, I've trimmed the sect by over half. There were nine (9) entries. I've removed several, now there are only four (4) left in that sect. Please see diff. Hopefully this is a satisfactory compromise, -- Cirt (talk) 23:20, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ more completely, as the discussion was about the nature of the content, not the quantity thereof. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:41, 5 August 2014 (UTC)