Talk:List of terrorist incidents in 2010

Egyptian attack - sectarian violence or terrorism?

Article states that it was sectarian violence assosciated with a previous crime by a Christian. Does that constitute terrorism. Not really in this instance as it is a targetting of a minority because of a previous crime. If the Coptics were targetted because of their religion or targetted by a member of what is considered a terrorist organization then it is a terrorist act. So far it looks like the act of criminals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AmerCana (talk • contribs) 13:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

when criminals/terrorists attack a group of unarmed civilians its a terror act--TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

also, the story about the "previous crime" isn't yet confirmed, but doesn't change the matter.--TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

However in America all the time people open fire on churches, resteraunts and other public places killing civilians and injuring others. For instance last month in Washington State four police officers were targetted by a lone gunman but that wasn't declared a terrorist incident. It appears this muslim shooter had a long list of crimes but is also connected to people in the main party in Eqypt.http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/100107/world/egypt_religion_unrest —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.77.245.189 (talk) 15:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

the U.S. gunmen don't have a clear motive, they go in because of a psycho. condition (AFAIK) this was targeted against a different community. Goal: intimidation of a whole community. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 18:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

FearGod: where did you get this definition of terrorism. Fine ONE reputable source at least that cites this. "when criminals/terrorists attack a group of unarmed civilians its a terror act--"

In the meantime, wikipedia is not for personal whims discretions.

while we're at it Terrorism may help your case.

OK I have read it. Now you read it. Read Definitions of terrorism too. My point is just stronger now.--TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Attacks by country

Looks quite messy (and inconsistent with the annual lists) and will be even more so as the list expands during the year. the map on the 2009 page is more organized. perhaps we can get that put up with once a month> update?

OK--TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree about the messy part. I think this list leads to more overhead as the list expands and just takes up space. 72.229.156.157 (talk) 16:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

unfortunately it's impossible to put it at the right side because of the table. Like the one in Coalition casualties in Afghanistan --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

this list list is woefully un-updated. plenty of attacks listed below yet not in this count. if we add it, it ought to be regularly updated. unless someone takes responsibility to update it, it seems to just be a distraction and deceptive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lihaas (talk • contribs)

January 7th entry on attacks inside Russia

This entry has references to counter terrorist operations and I don't think that constitutes "a terrorist attack". A terrorist attack is one initiated by the terrorists themselves; therefore that specific part should be removed while the other details stay. 72.229.156.157 (talk) 16:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Those incidents do not appear to be terrorist but criminal actions. The one that killed was definite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AmerCana (talk • contribs) 21:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

again you with the criminal actions... Attacks on police in a conflict zone are guerrilla acts.--TheFEARgod (Ч) 10:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Robert Harner

Why is his death considered as a terrorist incident? It happened in Afghanistan, a war torn country. An explosion or a gun fire, his death should not be counted as a "terrorist incident", but as a war victim. Norum 01:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

of course. The military vehicle was targeted, that's a guerrilla warfare attack. God damn--TheFEARgod (Ч) 11:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

It's an official war against the Taliban. Of course the military will be targeted, what did you expect (read:sarcasm)? He would be considered a victim of terrorism if he died in an actual terror attack, as in Sept. 11 attacks etc etc. So you might as well count all those that died in WWII or WW I as victims of terror. Just because military vehicles were targeted too. For crying out loud! Norum 11:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

the same goes with the 3 humanitarians who died in an IED explosion--TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

So. let's say that a German unit in WW II came under attack from, lets say, polish partisans, you would call that a terrorist attack too because it was a guerrilla warfare? Norum 17:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I meant guerrilla warfare is not terrorism.--TheFEARgod (Ч) 19:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Therefore the victims of guerrilla attacks are war victims. So my point is proved. Thank you. Norum 20:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

12 villagers killed by Maoist rebels

Is this a terrorist incident.

• http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100218/ap_on_re_as/as_india_rebel_attack

12 Villagers killed by Maoist rebels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.88.4 (talk) 09:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Murder of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh

I think the death of the Hamas military commander, in Dubai, on 20 Jan 2010 should be included in the list. References in the linked-page in the heading. Thanks.Mohamed Magdy (talk) 15:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I could only see a suggestion of "state terrorism" in the linked article, nothing is yet proven in the case. Alastairward (talk) 22:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

As per Talk:Tapuah junction stabbing, it should be added 122.167.196.76 (talk) 08:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Austin plane crash

I removed it from the list as the refs point to murder suicide, not terrorism. Alastairward (talk) 20:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

are you kidding? did you read the article title??? here are the words from the article: "DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano says her Department is taking a closer look at domestic terrorism. / his in the wake of that deadly attack on an IRS building in Austin, Texas. Software engineer Joseph Stack flew a private plane into the building after apparently writing an angry rant against the government online. Both Stack and an IRS worker were killed. "

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lihaas (talk • contribs)

One article is a "letter to the editor" piece, not an actual piece of work by a journalist checked by an editor, the other (quoted above) does not state that the attack itself was carried out by a terrorist. Murder, even mass murder, does not make one a terrorist. Alastairward (talk) 11:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

1. "DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano says her Department is taking a closer look at domestic terrorism....This in the wake of that deadly attack on an IRS building in Austin, Texas. Software engineer Joseph Stack flew a private plane into the building after apparently writing an angry rant against the government online. Both Stack and an IRS worker were killed." "Looking at domestic terrorism...IN THE WAKE OF..." it says the attack is TERRORISM. what differentiates terrorist vs. terrorism?

2. fair enough, nto a source to quote, but shows its acceptance as terrorism in line with the other.

3. http://www.realcourage.org/2010/02/stormfront-members-praise-terrorism/

http://altreport.hipsterrunoff.com/2010/02/will-austin-terrorist-attack-impact-sxsw-attendance.html

http://thephoenix.com/BLOGS/phlog/archive/2010/02/19/scott-brown-understands-where-that-guy-who-flew-his-plane-into-the-building-is-coming-from.aspx

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-02-18-plane-crash-building_N.htm

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/02/19/austin-plane-crash-criminal-act-domestic-terrorism/?loomia_ow=t0:s0:a4:g4:r1:c0.000000:b0:z5

3.1. bear in mind, the relevance of domestic terrorism when (As above) one official quotes its not terrorism like al-qaeda, but you have oklahoma and that Hunteree boys in MI. not to mention there is such a thin as lone wolf terrorism

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lihaas (talk • contribs)

here's the clincher: 2010 Austin plane crash

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lihaas (talk • contribs)

Common sense applies

Despite the person dying in 2010, the incident occured in 2009. We do not add a new incident because someone dies later, otherwise we would have some incidents that occur on multiple days in the same article. O Fenian (talk) 13:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

New attack in Egypt

A mild explosion in front of Jewish building, in Cairo down town. Does this count? Resources: voan news - ynet news Also other CNN, BBC and Aljazeera sources here [1]. Mohamed Magdy, Thank You! (talk) 19:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

yep, definately counts. could be lone wolf terrorism if not claimed by a larger organization. with the political-religious history over there this does count. (read the last para. for context)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lihaas (talk • contribs)

"List of terrorist incidents. Remember that not all incidents are necessarily attacks, some such as, February 8, 17, ---are still terrorist incident related and therefore should be listed.---"

...says who? --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

exactly, on waht basis should it be set? in none of the years previous has this precedent been set, why should it be added not based on a mere whim? more discussion and consensus is needed to change the meaning of this.

you can dd taht to the wars in Iraq and Afghan opages.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lihaas (talk • contribs)

NI bombs

The bombs did not explode. Why is that listed anyway?--TheFEARgod (Ч) 22:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Right on the top of the page it says (and has said in prev. years too) : "The following is a timeline of acts and failed attempts that can be considered non-state terrorism in 2010."

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lihaas (talk • contribs)

criteria/northern ireland (RAAD)

First of all I think it's important that all editors should read this.

This means that every incident added to the list must be backed by reliable sources that call it "terrorism". If it's not, it will be removed.

To comply with this, and to try and make the article even slightly neutral, I've changed the introduction to:

This is a timeline of incidents in 2010 that have been labelled as "terrorism" and are not believed to have been carried out by a government or its forces (see state terrorism and state-sponsored terrorism).

I've removed quite a few incidents already, but more needs to be done. ~Asarlaí 18:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary thats not what the rules mean. i dont know if youve changed this from the previous years but the rules said if the wikisite (this) mentiosn the word terrorism then it has to be cited. just because a reprot doesnt mention the word doesnt revoke its status as a terror attack. see the pages for the group that carried out, they are listed as terror groups and with claimaints for such groups it is. Terrorism is violence for political emans.

Secondly, get consensus on your drastic changes before going on edit wars on removal and not.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lihaas (talk • contribs)

"the rules said if the wikisite (this) mentiosn the word terrorism then it has to be cited. just because a reprot doesnt mention the word doesnt revoke its status as a terror attack".

I believe you just contradicted yourself there. We can't have editors going around labelling things as "terrorism" without supporting that labelling with reliable sources. Furthermore, just because some sources label Group X as "terrorists" doesn't mean that everything Group X does counts as "terrorism". ~Asarlaí 01:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding a recent edit... I don't think the use of so-called "anti-terrorist" or "counter-terrorist" forces in a certain incident makes that incident "terrorism". It certainly isn't mentioned here. ~Asarlaí 17:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

What does WTA have to do with anything? Are you seriously asserting that these sources weren't reporting on people who treat this as a terrorist event? Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and these incidents clearly fall within the purpose of the criteria. Ray^Talk 17:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

why was the lead changed on all the terror years' lists w/o discussion and consensus?

• Wp:Consensus can change.
• [2] why are the attacks for April removed with refernce to some age old discussion instead of this current one?
• WP: Common sense + WP: Ignore all rules

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lihaas (talk • contribs)

Lihaas, the consensus here and on this article is that incidents should only be added if they are backed by reliable sources that call it "terrorism". If "terror" or "terrorist" or "terrorism" isn't mentioned in the source, don't add it. Like I said before...we can't have editors going around labelling whatever they want without reliable sources to back it up. It's very simple. ~Asarlaí 18:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Superfopp, while I agree with the current criteria, I note that WP:WTA does not address inclusion criteria in lists, only the narrative voice of the article as it pertains to labelling - and then the restriction is much harsher on people than it is on incidents or events. Furthermore, I see no such consensus discussion on this page. If Lihaas wishes to open a discussion on the merits of the current criteria, it is his right and privilege to do so. For myself, I will insist that any criteria at which we arrive must be viewpoint-neutral and reasonably objective, while still bearing some resemblance to the popular understanding of the term. Ray^Talk 21:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

1. its good to discuss instead of reverting on a whim. so this is nice.

2. WP:Consensus Consensus can change, + WP:Common sense the wikipedia ruling of using the word terrorism is (in my opinion, im sure there are others and thus we debate it out) to refer to group X/people X as terrorists. as per the broader definition of terrorism/terrorists there is an article on that. and also one can see such group as the naxals falling under the WP: Terrorism project. so wikipedia has sanctioned that as terrorism, which means their attacks are not a "guerrilla war"/war/whathaveyou. at least on wikipedia wars are between states, for the most part.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lihaas (talk • contribs)

First of all let me point out that there is no universally agreed definition of "terrorism", and most definitions are quite vague. The current consensus on this article is very simple: incidents should only be added if they are backed by reliable sources that call it "terrorism". However, that simple 'rule-of-thumb' is currently being ignored. Users are adding incidents that could very well be related to domestic disputes and organised crime, with no ideology behind them. They are also adding attacks by paramilitaries against military/police targets, in which no civilians are harmed.

Essentially, you are asking editors to agree on a definition of "terrorism". You are then and expecting that definition to be neutral. To me, that's madness.

~Asarlaí 17:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Also... will editors be allowed to continue ignoring the consensus until a definition is agreed upon (which will undoubtedly take quite a while)? ~Asarlaí 17:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

terrorism doesnt by definition mean it has to be against civilian targets, not sure where you got this from but "in which no civilians were harmed" doesn't mean the attack wasn't. there are bombings that fail, bombings at night (ira/eta) that hurt no one. the groups claiming it are labeled "terrorists." all articles arent going to explicitly mention the word terrorism, because, quite frankly, when perpetrated by such militants/insurgents/non-state actors it precludes the use of the word in the at least the mainstream media. Some common sense is expected too.

that said there are some attacks that could very well be personal disputes (the list of indian flasgs at the beginning of the month come to mind). but generally, until proven otherwise by consensus editors should be allowed to be WP:Bold, not hard to remove. (Lihaas (talk) 22:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

This is not a list of bombings, so please do not add bombings that you personally consider to be terrorism. O Fenian (talk) 12:21, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

This statement is supposed to be part of a constructive debate? According to the page for RAAD they are an affiliation of the PIRA (which was classified as terrorist. This is not opinion, its wikipedia's own stance really.Lihaas (talk) 00:42, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Your argument is wrong on many counts. Firstly Wikipedia does not have a stance, that is well known. Secondly the IRA are not classed as a terrorist organisation in the country which the incident took place. Thirdly it is original research by synthesis to claim that because A are classed as "terrorists" and B are related to A that an incident involving B is a "terrorist" incident. Fourthly Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, if you think this was a terrorist incident then you need to provide a reliable source that says so, not your own opinion. O Fenian (talk) 15:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

not wikipedia's stance on supporting, stance was a wrong word, i agree, i apologize. It is listed and clarified on wikipedia as falling under the scope of terrorism. (Talk:Provisional Irish Republican Army) Wikipedia also says "Instead of following every rule, it is acceptable to use common sense." While I'm not advocating this WP:IAR "rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia..."

That said, i think people get offended by the term "terrorist" (as per WP:Terrorist i dont think that is actually adhered to on wikipedia). it really is the loaded word that make people say this is not so, and this is so. the previous years even had room for failed attacks. (of which the CIRA claimed 1 the day after Newry, for example) Maybe change the name of this list page to something else? "List of non-state attacks, XXXX" Would that sound better? It can accomadate more people. As per my above, i did agree that somethings on here seem to list anyone with a bomb or a pipe bomb. should we have consensus debate to clarify the ground rules? the last time someone changed the lead it was without discussion.

Also the removal of certain stuff like that of the FLNC by another user is really picking hairs. The FLNC spells out its raison d'etre and its past shows it. its surprising they even exist today, so its certainly significant portends if they happen to strike into the 21st century Lihaas (talk) 03:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

If your only argument is that you intend to "ignore all rules" then this discussion is pointless. You cannot just ignore policy any time you want and say "ignore all rules". Either you provide sources, or the incidents do not get added. O Fenian (talk) 08:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

okay reread what i said. i was ecplicitly not advocating that as "ignore all rules." it was an addition to "using common sense" because you cant wait for every article to explicitly mention the words "terror." in circumstances where group X has claimed it and group X is/has been affiliated terror it then becomes "common sense" to include it. you still havent answered the gist of what i was saying above. (im very willing to change define more clearly what to add, something to put on the main page (hidden, w/o publishing for public consumption)

and every addition is cited by WP:RS, is not id be the first to remove it.Lihaas (talk) 06:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

You either provide a source that describes the incident as terrorism, or it does not get added to the list. Also your claim that Republican Action Against Drugs are associated with the Provisional IRA is untrue, the article does not say that at all. O Fenian (talk) 09:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but your claim as the be all and end all arbiter here doesnt hold water. if you want your voice heard discuss the issue without threats and demands.

read the IMC report (22nd) - talks about the new dissident threat and the rise of violent activity attributed directly to RAAD and a group termed CFAD 122.167.182.246 (talk) 04:15, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I have read the report, and it only describes them as a "vigilante organisation", no mention of "terrorist". It is actually you who seems think you are the "be all and end all arbiter", since three editors have removed your addition and only you are adding it back. The only "be all and end all arbiter" is reliable sources, either provide them or stop adding it, and if you continue to edit disruptively I will seek to have you blocked and/or topic banned. O Fenian (talk) 17:56, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I think Lihaas is wrong in this particular case, but I would strongly dispute any suggestion that his editing has been intentionally disruptive. I see nothing more than a vanilla disagreement over the standards we apply to our content. I am disappointed that you are so quick to threaten quasilegal sanctions, and will defend Lihaas' prerogative to air genuine, more-or-less thoughtful, and well-meant differences of opinion, even if it costs us time and energy to respond to him. Ray^Talk 18:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The main problem is not his discussion, although his refusal to listen is not helpful. The main problem is edit warring to include content in violation of various policies, and the probable use of sockpuppets to do so. O Fenian (talk) 18:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not seeing an edit war here. I'm seeing back and forth discussion at a measured pace by edit summary, on the part of a newbie user who quite frequently forgets to sign in or sign his statements. I've remarked to him on both counts at some point. But his IP address is reasonably static within a range, so I see no attempt at sockpuppetry, which requires an intentional attempt to obfuscate identity. I just assume that any IP comment coming from 122.167.*.* on this subject is Lihaas. Let's not be bitey here. Ray^Talk 18:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

There is an edit war as the incident he is adding is related to The Troubles arbitration case which has a one revert per day restriction, which he has already been blocked for violating and has carried on edit warring since the block resulting in a second enforcement request and a sockpuppetry case resulting from that. O Fenian (talk) 18:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Um, what? I think the Troubles are over. This is about whether a case of drug vigilantism counts as terrorism. Anyhow, I've replied at AE. Let's continue this discussion there if we are to. Personally, I think we could just let the whole matter go. Ray^Talk 19:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

"You either provide...or it does not get added to the list" Sounds like your trying to police your right to decide. You have had your tag-team reverts before on the RIRA/CIRA articles with the IMC report, your challenge on a ban sounds pretty worthy of turning it around. Anyhoo, according to wikipedia, the debate should be on content not attacks/warnings on editors. so let's cut this out.

Furthermore, i have never claimed to be right on this issue. all i have said, time and time again is to discuss this first but the tag-term edits seem to remove at a whim with a simple note that "either you this or dont edit." that does not constitute a debate on the issue to garner consensus. I have continually sought to discuss this issue but you seem not to want to discuss but resort to threats.

and while we're on the matter of the criteria for inclusion i do think some of the list of daily iraq attacks dont constitute terror as such. its rather lawless there and seems like anyone with a grievance and gun gets to avenge some slight. (as above, i have also suggested agreement with other editors that many dont constitute attacks. I am more than willing (and wanting) to discuss a clear cut criteria rather than a whim to decide the criteria for inclusion)

Anyhoo, if you care to discuss because WP:Bold asks for editors to be bold (as per the editor who added this), if someone wants to challenge it the onus is on that person to say why. so DISCUSS away...

Lihaas (talk) 05:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

So you still do not have a source that describes either the incident or the group as terrorism/terrorists? Until you do there is nothing to discuss and the incident will not be added. O Fenian (talk) 07:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of what you feel wikipedia is not your property. If you wont bring this to a talk faciltiy and continue to use tag-team reverting to avoid the 1RR facility you are liable for disruptive edits. I have asked above nicely to come to the facility RepublicanJacobite and you have refused to discuss it. (as you did last year on the RIRA/CIRA pages for the IMC addition)

We have called for a criteria for inclusion, if you dont want to partake in constructive debate then refrain from disrupting this page.

Conversely, in the regard of the with the Tapuah Junction stabbing someone added this I wanted it removed so the onus was on me to discuss, and Im in the process of a debate (with Ray) to remove it. Someone was bold enough to add this, so you prove why should remove it and wait for consensus on this matter!!

Furthermore, read the Republican Action Against Drugs. "group was alleged to be Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) members operating under a cover name, as the IRA was on a ceasefire at the time DAAD stepped-up its activity." PIRA=proscribed group, along with offspring like the RIRA, CIRA, INLA, and the gaelic equivalents.

Vigilante="illegally punishes someone for perceived offenses, or participates in a group which metes out extrajudicial punishment to such a person. Often the victims are criminals in the legal sense"

Terrorism=Terrorism is, in the most general sense, the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion. Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians).

Now, putting aside WP:IAR and simply WP:Commonsense: Wikipedia itself has the above as does its own RAAD page. Metes out extrajudicial punishment? a means of coercion? Parallels? Illegal punishments are or are not extrajudicial? The IMC report uses the term/s. And as terrorism says "perpetrated for an ideological goal" what does a vigilante group called Republicans Action against Drugs indicate? Now the debate is going places, so debate. And consensus can't wait forever should you choose to ignore this. Lihaas (talk) 08:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

As usual, you ignore what other people say and just carry on with the same discredited arguments. As I have pointed out once already, the Republican Action Against Drugs does not say there are anything to do with the Provisional IRA, that is talking about Direct Action Against Drugs which would be clear to anyone else reading it if you had actually quoted the paragraph in full - "Very little is known about the group, but it is styled in a similar way to a previous group that operated in the 1990s, Direct Action Against Drugs (DAAD). This group was alleged to be Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) members operating under a cover name, as the IRA was on a ceasefire at the time DAAD stepped-up its activity". Do you still have no sources calling this group terrorists? O Fenian (talk) 09:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

This is becoming little more than trolling now. Unless reliable sources describe this incident as terrorism, or the perpetrators as terrorists, Wikipedia will not be doing so. 09:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Now you've picked a new arguement that you dont want to debate but wikipedia has bend to your tune. I'm sorry but after due time has passed for consensus and you still refuse to take up the issue the WP:Bold edit of the editor who added this has no reason to be withdrawn. Should we revert to vandalism at that point to make this your forum the complaint to the admin will take an aboutface. So i strongly suggest for the nth that we discuss the content of this article.Lihaas (talk) 09:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

The above discussion is officially pointless due to Lihaas's inability to provide sources or listen to what other editors are saying. If the incident is added back once more without reliable sources clearly and unambiguously describing it as "terrorism" then I will be starting a request for comment on Lihaas for disruptive editing, and asking for a topic ban to be imposed. O Fenian (talk) 09:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with O Fenian. Either Lihaas provides clear, verifiable, reliable sources that these were acts of terrorism or he stops adding the information. This is disruption, plain and simple. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 13:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I've provided my debate, if you 2 want to resort to you tag-team reverting without coming to the discussion table then the same can go to you too. and we can go back to the RIRA/CIRA articles as per last year. I have provided a source, you seem to have a problem with it so the onus is on you. There is apparently another person that has a problem with your POV edits (see the discuss on "Lihaas/sockpuppetry" ongoing), while the Ray above has also shown your overzealous protection and POV. Wherre have i not listened to your view? What view have you said that warrants a discussion, other than "stop posting"! --> you seem to have done the same on the FIRST post with the newer source. Wikipedia is not yours, if you dont like go start a IrishRepublicanpediaLihaas (talk) 03:27, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Lihaas, could you summarize for me, why you think the current criteria for inclusion shouldn't stand? I don't think there's much question that, under the current criteria, this incident should not be included based on the sources we've seen on it thus far. Best, Ray^Talk 03:51, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Well im willing to debate and discuss what the two find obectionable about the source (see the above) but they still refuse to discuss the content and expect their whim to stand mere because. "either you find a source or it doesnt go in" then as you said the "revert" he complained about was an addition WITH another source. I have just quoted the IMC report and then i've dissected the lexicon to show why i think it should go (that is not to say it should go, just why i think so)

Nevertheless, if they wont want to debate the content (as per the above) then they shouldnt be editing this.Lihaas (talk) 06:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Lihaas, the problem with the source, is simply that it doesn't refer to these actions as terrorism. Period. Full stop. There is, so far as I can see, nothing else objectionable about the source. Please point to where it does. You can't put up a source for "Bob doesn't like drug dealers" and say "See? Bob is a terrorist!" Ray^Talk 14:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

My comment at the top of this sub-section saying "If the incident is added back once more without reliable sources clearly and unambiguously describing it as "terrorism"" should have made it clear what my objection to the source is. As Ray says, it doesn't refer to RAAD as "terrorists" or their activities as "terrorism". O Fenian (talk) 22:53, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Deadliest incidents in 2010 suggestion

Dead	Injured	Date	Location	Event
105	100+	January 1	Lakki Marwat	2010 Lakki Marwat suicide bombing
59	100+	March 12	Lahore	March 2010 Lahore bombings#12_March
54	117	February 1	Baghdad	1 February 2010 Baghdad bombing

...and so on. 5 are enough--DAI (Δ) 14:42, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Not in a table like this, but a mention on the top can be listed, perhaps. get some consensus first. (2 weeks w/o reply seems like consensus, you cant wait forever.)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lihaas (talk • contribs)

Not terrorist incident

[3] The attack was by Muhammad Hatib, a Palestinian soldier, killing a foreign soldier occupying the Palestinian territories, Hatibs home, therefor the attack was not a terrorist attack as he killed an invading soldier. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:51, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

This more than qualifies under the inclusion criteria on the page, which govern the inclusion of items on the list. We recognize that nationalistic points of view may differ, which is why our inclusion criteria are simple: a RS mentions allegations of terrorism, and the act was carried out by a non-state entity. Ray^Talk 21:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Jpost is not a RS in this matter since its an Israeli paper. I'm sure you can find Israeli papers referring to the westbank, Jerusalem and Golan as "Israel", so in certain things they can not be used as sources. A Palestinian killed a soldier that invaded and occupied his land, this was not a terrorist attack in any way. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree w/ your assessment regarding the reliability of the Jerusalem Post, to put it mildly. Neutrality is not a requirement for reliability - only some level of fidelity to factual reporting is needed. You appear to be forum shopping, as we are having the same discussion on Talk:Tapuah junction stabbing. This incident clearly satisfies our inclusion criteria: the action was not undertaken by a state entity, and has been characterized as terrorism in reliable sources. You appear to have a very strong point of view with respect to Israel/Palestine articles. I remind you that Wikipedia has a neutrality policy, and strongly suggest that you adhere to it while you edit here. The internet has plenty of other places for you to soapbox. Ray^Talk 18:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Jpost is not a RS in this matter since its an Israeli paper.

What? Israeli media is perfectly reliable. If Al Jazeera is the standard for Middle East media, virtually all Israeli papers easily qualify as an RS. Jpost has relationships with the Wall Street Journal FYI. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

oh please, Al Jaz. is a greater standard bearer across the world then "virtuall all Israeli papers." that said, im not arguing with jpost, wall street journal, or even some left paper being RS. regardless of whether you agree to either.

but resorting to attacks on another is not going to help the point.Lihaas

at any rate, why does this quality for inclusion? The Palestinian security forces are recognised by 1. usa, 2. israel too? if "state terrorism" like drone bombings (on civilian targets) dont qualify here, then certainly this doesn't. it is not perpetrated by a group labeled "terrorist" nor is it claimed by them (talk) 22:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

in like measure why not include thsi too [4]

theres not point having 2 different debates. we should merge this and Talk:Tapuah junction stabbing

Attack on PSNI officers working on railway

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/8578622.stm

Does this count as terrorism? The attack was unsuccessful, but the main thing is nobody know who it was yet, so will it count as a terrorist incident? --93.96.175.64 (talk) 00:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

That depends entirely on what reliable sources say. Our inclusion criteria are merely that an incident must be labelled as terrorism and not carried out by a state entity. Our own opinion does not come into it. Ray^Talk 03:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

certainly counts, you can see it in the reactions mentions and then couple with newry incidents lately. (although the latter is jsut further proof, not prime proof)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lihaas (talk • contribs)

Belfast bomb

Couple of changes, changed flag to UK to conform with the previous entries in the article. (Besides, NI is still part of the UK) Also changed the injured figure to 1, as one man was blasted off his feet and taken to hospital for shock, although it was minor. Feel free to dispute, just put your reasons here to avoid misunderstanding. :) --Old Marcus (talk) 03:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

All sounds fine, I addressed the fact tag for the claim of responsibility to polish it off. Alastairward (talk) 15:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

yep, your right. my bad ont he flag, in one of the previous years it ahd the northern ireland flag.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lihaas (talk • contribs)

Various IRA entries removed?

Why have some incidents been removed, such as the man who was shot by IRA members, and if I remember correctly, was labeled as terrorism? Seems someone has been a bit over-zealous in the cleanup of this article... --93.96.175.64 (talk) 16:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

That is certainly not beyond the realm of possibility. If you have any such which clearly satisfy the inclusion criteria, feel free to re-add them. Ray^Talk 20:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

IRGC incident

Lihaas, nothing in the sources provided described the incident as a terrorist attack. Under current criteria, you need such a source before reverting me. I will address also what I view as the more general case, under other conceivable criteria which regard terrorism as a well-defined phenomenon of violence against civilian targets undertaken for the purpose of instilling fear in furtherance of a political objective: this is a list of terrorist incidents, not a list of incidents caused by terrorist groups. The distinction is not a subtle one: many terrorist groups also engaged in acts of more-or-less legitimate warfare. In this case, we have an attack without too many details on the militarized internal security force of the Iranian regime, which does not fall into the ambit of traditional conceptions of terrorism. Best, Ray^Talk 04:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

[5] That maybe, and i agree not everythign qualifies, but that is our opinion. we are not to define what "legitimate warfare," this itself falls in dangerous territory as "one man's terrorist is another man's revolutionary." meaning, of course, that somethign is legitimate to one while not to the other. How do we differentiate this? Taken in context the regions of the east (Jundullah) and west (PJAK) are areas of conflict with rebels.

otherwise most attacks in Afghanistan and Iraq would be simple attacks.

Anyhoo, i proposed to start a discussion on the criteria but the above was hijacked for specific instances. In general discussion, i would agree with you that the attack should mention terrorism how that cannot be blindly followed (as per WP:Commonsense and WP:Ignore. Something there are groups/areas that are in the throes of rebellion, and when such groups have in the past been described as terrorist either in event or government (this is a list of non-state attacks) speech then it is fair to say they are "terrorist" perpetrating attacks deemed "terrorist." Given, your point above is valid in an academic/intellectual/political sense, but the wikipedia doesn't give us room to define and synthecise.

Also I would like to propose the page name be moved to "List of non-state attacks/incidents of terror, XXXX" As it stands this title is in blatant violation of WP:WTA Also the hidden text on the main page for the edit rules was changes across all years without discussion so I would like to propose that the outcome of this criteria debate be added there. Lihaas (talk) 11:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Lihaas, our criteria are explicit and clear, and this incident is clearcut. Not even the Iranian press release called this act terrorism. Your calling it terrorism is thus completely out of bounds. And wta has nothing to do with article titles - it merely discusses the advisability of labelling particular persons and organizations as terrorists in the narrative voice of Wikipedia. In any case, as a guideline it is always overriden by local consensus, which we have achieved here. Ray^Talk 16:00, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

But it isnot explicit. When designated groups strike the word "terrorism" does not feature each and every time, and as per these rules it doesnt leave room for such cause. "counter-revolutionary" lexicon is used in the iran for such matter as Jundullah which i can show you have also been called terrorist. This is the thing, you cant stick to something for the sake of it, hence WP:Ignore and WP:Bold. Its not intuition, like the attack in SC or some place which was [rightfully] removed. All the attacks that talk about the daily violent updates from iraq certainly don't mention terrorism, why are these ritually added as opposed to others?

All i'm saying is lets formulate the consensus (as was intended above) instead deviating on specific issues. (also consensus can change') Instead of coming back and question edits every so often we should have a less rigid documentation. (we have also got to start removing all attacks on here that dont fit explicit criteria then,a t any rate its too long and a lot gets added with only controverisal reverts getting removed)

Here you go, from the same source, "Iranian officials said that the Party for a Free Life in Kurdistan (PJAK), which is an offshoot of the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), claimed responsibility for the assassination. " This last line already affirms responsibilty for the attack by those affiliated with and carrying on the same conflict as the already proscribed PKK. Iran–Party for a Free Life in Kurdistan conflict just like Jundullah, already labeled terrorist by Iran. The official FARS agency [6]. And apparently even Germany are in strong consideration [7]. + [8] the Iranian press and the Azeri press have called the PJAK and its commands terrorist. With some sources from here and the incidents showing PJAK claiming it can we add it then? I'll refrain from adding it b/c you think my addition is controversial, you can put it in better words then? Lihaas (talk) 07:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Lihaas, nowhere near close. I will repeat myself for the Nth time: this is a list of incidents called terrorism, not a list of incidents in which people who have been called terrorist are involved. Do you understand that distinction? You don't have anybody calling the particular incident in question terrorism in a reliable source. Ray^Talk 14:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. But then can we go into discussing a definition of this because if one is to fairly order this list it would be much smaller instead of partisan. I wouldn't mind helping out, but if you want to share the labour then lets go over the list from January to today. Whatever is not explicitly terror can be removed then?

Just to clarify even if claimed by proscribed group X it is not terrorism unless the media or government sources call it so? Ill go ahead and start clearing this list up when you give the heads up Lihaas (talk) 08:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Ambush = terrorist incident?

"April 23 11 16 Pakistan Dattakhel, North Waziristan, Pakistan Taliban militants ambushed a military convoy of Pakistani soldiers, as it was carrying out a routine movement in the tribal region of North Waziristan. In a seperate incident, within the same region, Taliban militants killed four people who they had accused of spying for the U.S".
Is it a terrorist attack?In the north-west Pakistan as the war continues, and it was a usual military clash.Sentinel R (talk) 05:28, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

It was blamed on a proscribed group (Taliban/TETP) so it would qualify as they are listed as a terrorist group. Of course not everything is going to explictly say "terror" every time, expecially when the group is already proscribed as such and there is note of them being called "terrorists" across the media.

Likewise withthe CPI-Maoist./ Lihaas (talk)

In this case, you can add to the terrorist incidents - regular skirmishes between the army and incurgents. Terrorism has clear criteria. Show me where the ambush is called terrorist tactics.Sentinel R (talk) 13:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I dont get your message. You said in this case to add, but then "show me." do you agree its addition was right? or...?Lihaas (talk) 07:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I dont agree with you. I dont think that ambush - a tactic of terrorists.Sentinel R (talk) 12:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah okay, now i understand.

but on behalf, its not the "tactic of terrorists" but the acts of terrorism. The insurgents in this case are not widely acclaimed to be fighting a civil war (granted the CPIM think so, but then all pariahs outside the state system think so). in that vein, the naxal attacks have been labeled terror (and once can see that across the indian media, written or spoken). As for the Taliban i can see where you're coming from, i would agree too. but the only thing is that opens a can of worms with other attacks of the talib. which to label as such and which not to.Lihaas (talk) 08:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Map/quick count

As in previous articles List_of_terrorist_incidents,_2009 can we have a map of the attacks listed, or perhaps a simple quick count with a table showing how many attacks in each country. This is ideal for researchers studying the field and the instability (growing or not), this kind of statistical data is more important for quick studyLihaas (talk) 12:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Mizoram incident

I have once again removed this incident. The source does not speculate as to the perpetrators or the motive. If any sources do speculate please provide them, but at present it may be nothing more than a personal dispute settled with "a gelatin stick used for catching fish", which I am sure is an explosive not limited to terrorists by its very nature. O Fenian (talk) 20:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Times Square Car Bomb

Whether or not this is a terrorist attack has yet to be determined. I propose removal until the nature of the attempt is definitively determined. Comments? Chrisbrl88 (talk) 23:27, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that would be pointlessly bureaucratic. I rather doubt this was a mafia hit or a business dispute. Ray^Talk 00:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

It is already got the labels of terrorism (see the requisite page for it)(Lihaas (talk) 07:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Grammatical errors

• [9] I have no issues with this edit except that it is written like a story. the ambassador's name is already mentioned and reiteriating his name (especially his first name) "Tim was traveling in" seems to come out of a story book. And he's not "disguised as a schoolboy" according to the source "young man who was wearing a school uniform." So something like : "A suicide bomber wearing a school uniform attacked the convoy of the British ambassador to Yemen, Tim Torlot. Though two people were injured the ambassador was unharmed."
• [10] a suicide bomber doesn't detonate unless he is spontanously combusted, which is highly unlikely and no sources say that. Its the car bomb that detonated, or the explosives. If we "We don't need to know he detonated explosives" then we certainly can't synthesize that he combusted.Lihaas (talk) 09:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

They detonate there explosives-packed vest which is on the suicide bomber therefore they explode so they detonate. So there is no need to say detonated his explosives as you can just say detonated for short as they are a human bomb. The term detonate means to explode. 90.208.71.150 (talk) 19:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)