Talk:List of terrorist incidents in January–June 2011

Deletion of Terrorist incidents 2011

I recommend that since no one can edit this page because of one or two Wikipedia users and that terrorist incidents that have been cited from news articles and from Global Incident Map, a recorder of terrorist incidents around the world to a dim small narrow view of terrorist incidents being just the bombing of a Christian church in Eqypt when other people have been injured and killed in bombings and terrorist shootings (murder of Pakistani Governor) that with the lack of free liberty to post terrorist incidents and the narrow view that does not confine anywhere near the norms that police forces consider terrorism excluding other terrorist incidents that this page be removed and deleted as there is no point in having this page in the first place if one or two people can cancel out other users who write legitimate terrorist incidents. Because in the 2010 and the 2011 list there hasn't been one terrorist incident for 2011 and only 89 for 2010. Only the "so called"most important or targetting christian peoples. (Al qaeda) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.77.246.23 (talk) 20:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Criteria

• The question being asked is 1. can consensus work towards a new definition/criteria for inclusions, and 2. what should the criteria be (for uninvolved editors some suggestions would be appreciated)Lihaas (talk) 23:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I see that O fenian has stated that these are unsourced terrorism. However, they are cited by news sources, they are used in a direct measure of terrorism, being bombs, a gun assassination attack that will spread fear in Pakistani liberal ranks, and attacks thru the use of terrorism targetting civilians. His statement that this is unsourced terrorism is incorrect. Just because these incidents were noton the level of the attack on the Coptic Church in Eqypt. Unless he has got a direct definition that the whole world and all law enforcement agencies in the world recognize for terrorism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SMHC1980 (talk • contribs) 18:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

We can always create a definition with consensus and then put on the page with hidden comments. the current one is more than 2 years old, was altered at some point last year of 2009.

to get the ball rolling, i propose something along the lines of even if it doesn't explicitly mention terrorism (because most sources are going to say that for most attacks (ie- minor ones without response, instead just reporting)), we can mention attacks perpetrated or likely perpetrated by non-state actors organised into [some sort] of a political group. (ie- not criminal gangs, but they must have some ideology). (of course one mustn ot forget lone wolf terrorism

of course specific attacks can always be discussed, but we dont to have everything up for discussion.(Lihaas (talk) 23:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)).

We have had the discussion at Talk:List of terrorist incidents, 2010 where it was agreed only specifc incidents called terrorism by reliable sources are included, which was confirmed by the community at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ryan kirkpatrick. There can never be a consensus to change that to include incidents in violation of policy. O Fenian (talk) 09:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

With this said, you have _REAPEATEDLY_ reverted an Embassy Bombing wherein the bomber has ties to Al Qaeda, and you are repeatedly dangerously close to WP:3rr. If you are removing material that is that controversial _WITHOUT_ posting to the comments page _REPEATEDLY_ you're quite simply in the wrong. Please stop. Trelane (talk) 00:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Your statement regarding changes in consensus ignores [[WP:Consensus]} which specifically states that it can be changed. While the attempted plane hijacking probably qualifies under the sorts of edits you claim in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ryan kirkpatrick, the following do not:

• the 1/1 bomb killing two Thai Police officers (wherein the article notes that Islamic insurgents have killed thousands, providing indirect attribution for this attack, qualifying it therefore as terror).
• the 1/3 suicide car bombing wherein Al Jazeera has stated that no one has claimed responsibility yet (a usual tactic of terrorists)
• the 1/4 assassination in Pakistan of a High Ranking party official by his bodyguard, affiliated with several extremist Islamic groups.
• the 1/5 bombing committed by an Al Qaeda millitant at an Embassy

I would be willing to have a good faith argument regarding the 1/3 assassination of an Iraqi intelligence agency as it is an act of war, and the 1/5 hijacking of an aircraft (there is no evidence that this was not the act of a madman). Any further effort to bulk revert these articles will result in my reverting your revert, and a trip to WP:arbcomTrelane (talk) 00:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Go right ahead, you will find you are in the wrong. Unless you have reliable sources that describe a specific incident as terrorism, it does not get added to the list. My argument does not ignore consensus, since consensus cannot override policy. O Fenian (talk) 00:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary i think youll find that WP:Consensus can change at any time. thats why i poseted to the talk page to gain consensus not to get attacked saying it wont!(Lihaas (talk) 05:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)).

Please read what I said. Consensus cannot override policy. There can never be a consensus that an incident which is not called terrorism by a reliable source is called a terrorist incident. That is written into the policy, see Wikipedia:Consensus#Level_of_consensus. O Fenian (talk) 10:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary there is no such "policy" on wikipedia. By its very nature wikipedia is not static in any regard. As change is the only constant, youll find consensus does change.

Furthermore, you have NOT cited anything but your own personal opnion about "policy" standing firm.Lihaas (talk) 20:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

"Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope." So do you think you can convince the community that neutral point-of-view does not apply to this article? That cannot be done, read that policy. "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is non-negotiable and all editors and articles must follow it." I have highlighted the relevant part for you. As the text says, it is a Foundation level policy, it cannot be ignored because of a local consensus. O Fenian (talk) 20:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

WHAT are you talking about? Where is the "community consensus" on this vs. "consensus by a limited group of editors" The talk at 2010 page is NOT a "community consensus" The question of POV is YOUR interpretation and yours alone. multiple editors here have in fact countered your claims!(Lihaas (talk) 22:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)).

"There are none so blind as those who will not see". Are you really struggling to understand that a discussion on this talk page CANNOT result in the neutral point-of-view policy not applying to this article? And that also, it is incredibly, incredibly, unlikely that a discussion on this talk page will result in the no original research policy or the verifiability policy not applying to this article? O Fenian (talk) 23:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Let me make this simple, I'm not here to play wikilaw with a whining little child who reverts every edit when he gets his way. You've got at least two editors here telling you you're wrong, and there's only one of you. Furthermore there's a HUGE track record of you gaming this list to your own ends. Your POV != NPOV, it's that simple. Assuming a source declaring an attack to be terror related also assumes the third party source is NPOV... the very concept of WP:NPOV contradicts this position. We also run into a "magic words" scenario, wherein if any "reliable" source wants something archived as a terrorist attack, regardless of the validity, they need merely say the "magic words", and an incident is automatically terror. This is why we have talk pages, this is why we have open discussion to reach consensus, this is exactly why dictatorial editors are NOT acceptable here on wikipedia, and this is why I brought an ARBCOM action against O Fenian. Trelane (talk) 03:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I've been attempting to research, and re-add as many attacks as possible. I have however as I was investigating the term "insurgency" discovered another apt definition of terror, and quite frankly believe that there may be many positive definitions which can be used. Instead of one blanket, broken criterion, Wikipedia supplies the following definitions of terror:

• Tactics_of_terrorism wherein the nuts and bolts of the commission of terror are examined
• Terrorism#Types_of_terrorism wherein the types of terror are examined
• Definition_of_terrorism wherein dozens of definitions of what terrorism is are listed.

Considering that multiple articles on Wikipedia, both well researched, and extensively documented exist to help clue us in as to what terror is, accepting a third outside standard created by a Consensus of One is unacceptable to the standards of Wikipedia Trelane (talk) 03:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

One last thought, and then I'm done. Vice President of the United States Joe Biden has declared Wikileaks a terrorist organization, and the leak of diplomatic cables a terrorist act. This is sufficient (he is the second highest official in the Executive Branch of the United States of America) under the current "policy" "where it was agreed only specifc incidents called terrorism by reliable sources are included" that the leak of diplomatic documents should be listed as a terrorist attack in 2010. Failure to follow this ironclad policy would label the Vice President a "non-reliable" source. Now I'll bet all the money in my pockets against all the money in O Fenian's that if I list the release of documents by Wikileaks as a terrorist incident, that not only would it be reverted, but I'd probably be begging for my editing privileges back. This is insane, and it needs to end. We do not create content here, we do however exercise common sense, well most of us , anyway. Trelane (talk) 04:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes. This is insane. This is where trying to get an agreed definition of terrorism leads you. This is because the people who use the word Terrorism use it as a generic pejorative. They do not want the word to have an agreed definition because if it did then they could not use it that way and they could find it being used against them. It is never NPOV; it isn't meant to be. filceolaire (talk) 11:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Suggestions for criteria:

1. Acts by designated groups could also count.
2. Acts labeled terrorism
3. Acts with political intent (as adjudged by the RS even without the specific term "terrorist")
4. and of course consensus on talk for controversial additions (not statements of "policy"(Lihaas (talk) 19:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)).

I'm going to address your list in order

1. Designated by whom? As much as I'd like to believe the US State Department's is an NPOV source... it's the State department, and I'd be insane to believe that.
2. agreed here
3. agreed here, with the caveat that the attack does not have a military target. An insurgent attack might bomb a military convoy, this is not terror, especially in a war zone, or long term conflict area. Any political attack on a civilian, police man, or politician is safe to call an act of terror
4. This one is important. We cannot wait simply for "magic words" to be used to call an attack terror. An assassination of a politician for any reason by a non-state actor is an act of terror by definition.

Trelane (talk) 20:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Read and embrace them, as they apply to the article no matter how much you and another editor stamp your feet. It is original research and a violation of neutral point-of-view to label an incident a terrorist incident based on your own, or even other people's, ideas of what constitutes a terrorist attack, and that is before I even mention incidents needing to be verifiably a terrorist incident and Wikipedia not being a publisher of original thought. O Fenian (talk) 19:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Thats rich! talking about stamping your feet. wikipedia is also not your personal platform to demand your way or the highway. at any rate, your welcome to discuss the issue instead of unconstructive posts which these certainly are.

to answer, Trelane:

1. designation by any "official" (read: state) body and/or the UN (per List of designated terrorist organisations
2. somewhat agreed then per iraq/afghanistan, but in places like algeria/yemen i think the designation would fit, mainly because its not a full fledged war. (although that doesnt preclude all attack in iraq/afghanistan where a bombing of a govt. building/embassy could count even though strictly not civilan)
3. thats fine and WP:Bold, but somethings may be challenged and then discussed not blanket additions or removals.(Lihaas (talk) 02:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)).

Dubious

The Iraq/Afghan attacks were removed citing it as part of the war. Although i dont see why that cant be an attack qualified as such. There is a global War on Terror according tosome, that would mean nothing gets included.

Ive temporarily reinserted the canada one as that could qualify as terrorism (last year and before there were suspected leftist/indigenous groups who blew up pipelines), as much as they uncliamed assassination in pak.

changes

tryign otu some new things: 1. add a new column for location and seperate from the details instead of running on, 2. removed the month from each "date" column as the section already signifies th month.(Lihaas (talk) 14:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)).

afghan attack

...was removed citing "Not listed in 2010. It is combat in a war setting. If it wasn't listed in 2010 why should it be listed in 2011. If it targetted civilians and not the actual combat operation itself it shouldn't be ter" 1. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a an exucse to delete, i dont know the issue there but it is part of the IED attack not perpetratred by the state and usually blamed/claimed by the Talib --> constitueing non-state terrorism.(Lihaas (talk) 16:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)).

Why didn't the BBC report call it a terrorist incident? It's in a war zone and was aimed at an Afghan police chief so some people would say it isn't a terrorist incident. How do we answer them? filceolaire (talk) 23:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Full-protected 24 hours

I have full-protected the article for 24 hours due to a currently brewing edit war, which continued amongst established users following an implementation of semi-protection. Users are required to discuss the issues at hand here or seek out some forms of dispute resolution. Regards, –MuZemike 00:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, there has been dispute resolution. The criteria have been discussed repeatedly at the previous year's Talk:List of terrorist incidents, 2010 where it was agreed only specifc incidents called terrorism by reliable sources are included, which was confirmed by the community at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ryan kirkpatrick. I do not believe it is reasonable for me to be expected to have to file a request for comment for every single editor that will not respect policy. If reliable sources have described an incident as terrorism it goes on the list, without reliable sources it does not. It is not for editors to determine if an incident is terrorism. O Fenian (talk) 00:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

O Fenian you are the only one holding the position that this is resolved, at least in any post on the talk page. Thus there is no consensus Trelane (talk) 03:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

No, I am not the only one. Wikipedia policies are very clear, and they apply to this page no matter how much you and another editor claim they do not. O Fenian (talk) 20:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Really, who else? There is NO hard and fast policy NOT up for consensus change because ANYTHING AND EVERYTHIGN on wikipedia = WP:Consensus can change(Lihaas (talk) 22:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)).

You might want to read the part about how consensus between you and another editor cannot decide that policies do not apply to this article, instead of just saying the bit you think suits your argument. You are confusing "according to consensus" with "according to policy", and your disruptiveness regarding this is quite dull now. Still, I will only have a couple more days of this to put up with.. O Fenian (talk) 22:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

page move

to something less POV than such an article title that is already controversial. It would be an accomodation to various sides. I propose List of non-state organisation incidents, 2011 or perhaps add "violent" before incidents.(Lihaas (talk) 22:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)).

While this does seem to solve the existing problem, we're bending over backwards to deal with one editor who has an NPOV problem. It's fine to call a terrorist attack a terrorist attack, however we need a functional agreed upon consensus as to what a terrorist attack is. Certainly every lunatic with a bomb is not a terrorist, however one might consider "is this violent incident perpetrated by a politically oriented group". There will be edge cases, however good faith, discussion, and consensus, not edit warring can resolve those. I'd also note that there is some aspect of "does a rose by any other name smell as sweet?" to which the answer is of course yes. Trelane (talk) 03:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Granted, i was trying to resolve this (the messages below are also reasonmable).

I think seeking the word "terrorist" in a media or government report (although the latter generally does) is not going ot generate anything for even obvious cases.Lihaas (talk) 19:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)).

If we come up with our own little definition of what a "Terrorist incident" is then that would be Original Research. Better to come up with a description of what sort of incident should be included and what sort should be excluded then rename the page to reflect that description. What about List of politically and religiously motivated violent attacks by non-state parties 2011 or maybe just delete this page and add each incident to whichever category is most appropriate for that particular incident.filceolaire (talk) 22:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Though I wouldn't mind expanding the list to include acts by criminals and madmen (2011 Tucson shooting is looking like this) and states (so Israeli bombs dropped on Gaza are included as well as Gazan attacks on Israel)(Also US cruise missiles in Pakistan).filceolaire (talk)

I don't mean US cruise missile attacks are terrorist incidents however they are violent incidents and that is what I think this list should record. The descriptions of each incident in the list should have enough detail that each reader can decide whether it meets his or her personal definition of terrorism. Rename as List of notable violent attacks 2011, OK?filceolaire (talk) 23:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

its not our own definition, its the criteria that relates to already defined meanings.

that would be state terrorism which is apart from non-state terrorism. Although having a list of both is fine. (im trying the state terrorist one in my sandbox at the moment pending definition)(Lihaas (talk) 02:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)).

There is no agreed definition of what is Terrorism, State terrorism or State sponsored terrorism. Specifically there is no agreement on where the line is between these and legimate military action or legitimate insurgency against an unjust government. There is fairly broad agreement on what is a violent attack. filceolaire (talk) 11:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I suggest we create a list for each ongoing conflict List of violent incidents in Iraq 2011, List of violent incidents in Afghanistan 2011, List of violent incidents in Israel/Palestine 2011 and have a seperate generic List of violent incidents 2011 which excludes incidents in those areas but refers to the ongoing conflicts (and the specific lists). This will let us list school shootings or the 2011 Tucson shooting (for instance) without having to do Original Research into the shooters motives. It would also mean incidents like 2010 Kingston unrest could be included even though the violence is criminal rather than political. OK? filceolaire (talk) 10:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree although i would add the caveat "state" and "non-state" to seperate.

Looks like we're making progress.(Lihaas (talk) 22:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)).

I propose we make state or non-state a column in the table rather than putting them on two different lists. In conflicts between state and non-state parties violent acts by one may be related to actions by the other and having them on the same table will add value. filceolaire (talk) 23:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

interesting, but what exactly do you mean? how would these different columns work? Just lsit the incident and then "check off" state or non-state? would you mind trying in your sandbox to show?(Lihaas (talk) 02:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)).

"Terrorist incident" is not NPOV

Terrorism is not a neutral label. There is no neutral agreed definition of what is and what is not Terrorism. No one uses this label for their own acts - it is only ever used as a negative label for acts by our enemies.

Calling something a "terrorist incident" is not NPOV. For Wikipedia to apply
this label to an incident is Original Research and is not neutral. We can,
however, use this list to record incidents which have been labelled
terrorism by a reliable source.

Do we have a consensus for that as the policy for this page? filceolaire (talk) 16:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Note that the Afghan carbombing report does not mention terrorism nor does the Pakistani assasination. The BBC hardly ever uses that label for incidents. As the BBC reports of these incidents doesn't call them terrorist incidents then it is OR for us to add that label. These should be moved to List of bombings 2011 and List of politically motivated killings 2011 respectively.filceolaire (talk) 16:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Since this update the guard in the Pakistani Assassination has been tried in a terror court. As you state many news agencies do not label terrorist attacks terrorist attacks. Politicians will label whatever they don't like a terrorist attack. Wikipedia is replete with definitions of what terrorism is, and isn't. Achieving consensus that a given incident falls under one or more accepted definitions of terrorism is not original research, and would be neutral. It is certainly better than an assassination not being an act of terror, and wikileaks being an act of terror. That's simply insane. Trelane (talk) 07:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

There are lots of definitions of terrorism but none of them are "accepted". Every definition is disputed by somebody. That is the reason many news agencies don't label any attacks as terrorist attacks and nor should we. Investigating and adjudicating as to whether a particular incident falls within the US State Department definition of terrorism (for instance) when the State Department itself has not given it's opinion on the subject is most definitely Original research. Remember that an argument can be made that the Boston Tea party could qualify as a terrorist incident under some definitions. That is why I am suggesting we list all notable violent incidents and ongoing conflicts and let our readers decide whether they want to call a particular incident terrorism. filceolaire (talk) 11:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

EXACTLY WHY we cant resort to media definitions thereof.(Lihaas (talk) 22:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)).

Yeah, I can definitely see the wisdom in ignoring what reliable sources say and just using your own definition instead.. O Fenian (talk) 22:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

See my proposal in the page move section above which will I think answer this question.filceolaire (talk) 23:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I dont think its worth wasting your time with his disruptive edits taht dont further discussion. We have 3 people here (and more are certainly welcome but we cant wat forever) who are actually and activel working on a resolution.(Lihaas (talk) 02:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)).

Well this definition will definitely help some people to push their POVs on others...if mere labeling is enough, than anyone accused of terrorism is instantly guilt of terrorism. That means that any idiot with power who calls an event a terrorist event, makes it become one. Why would a list of terrorist attacks include "possible cases of terrorism"? Until proven to be one, one should not be factually labelled as one. Passionless (talk) 05:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

in this case exactly why we cant stick to hard-and-fast rules strictly laebeling "terrorism" in the media source to add it here. thats why we need some other criteria. which part do you support/propose/oppose?(Lihaas (talk) 20:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)).

I propose we never label something terrorist, merely label it what it is, an attack/bombimg/assassination/cyber attack. Passionless (talk) 21:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Niger incident

There is no source for the claim that "Suspected Al-Qaeda-North African offshoot militants" were responsible, this is a gross distortion of the source which actually says "No group has said it was behind the abduction, but al-Qaeda's North African offshoot has seized Westerners before". That is a different thing entirely. O Fenian (talk) 19:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Al Jazeera did say so. Your not going to say thats not RS?

the failed rescue was also prompted by seeing the AQIM members in the area.

at any rate, the rescue wasnt a "terrorist incident" the kidnapping was which happened before 2011(Lihaas (talk) 02:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)).

What are you talking about? O Fenian (talk) 09:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

YES, thats the same thing. they were NOT kidnapped that day! they died in a rescue op!(Lihaas (talk) 10:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)).

The BBC source has been updated with more information now anyway. O Fenian (talk) 10:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

2 Frenchmen, 4 supected kidnappers and 3 Niger soldiers died in this incident. 9 deaths total. With the rename of this page this now qualifies for inclusion so I'm adding it back. filceolaire (talk) 19:38, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

2011 Tucson shooting

Should todays shooting in Tucson, Az be added to this page?filceolaire (talk) 20:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Probably but we need to know a bit more about it first. Trelane (talk) 20:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

i agree but also to wait. lone wolf terrorism is still terrorism.(Lihaas (talk) 02:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)).

I think that the shooting is probably going to qualify if we expand what we accept as terrorism. (It's certain that this falls under most definitions proposed elsewhere on Wikipedia as terror.) At this point it doesn't look like this guy was backed by another country, which would make this lone wolf domestic terrorism, not a state sponsored act. Trelane (talk) 07:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Renaming

Hi, I was just wanting to propose we change the title of this page to something like "Armed conflicts and attacks, 2011" This way all major violent events can be covered without having to dispute POV over every addition, this page will also be more valuable in that it will contain many more events, yet still be equally useful for anyone looking for terrorist attacks in 2011, as they will all certainly be in here regardless of anyones definition of terrorism. Cyber/information warfare could also be included, for those who believe some events of this nature are terrorist like. Please let me know what you think,Passionless (talk) 05:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Yep, proposed this (see aboe). we now have at least 3 supporters. the only think we werent quite in agreement yet was whether to include state AND non-state incidents in the same vein. (although this would validate the iraq/afghan entries)(Lihaas (talk) 20:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)).

Sorry, WP:TLDR Passionless (talk) 21:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Moved. I had a look at various ways of labelling incidents as state / non-state but in most of these the description already tells you that and in the others the perpetrators are unknown - we just suspect it was this or that party. OK? filceolaire (talk) 00:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I removed the terrorist bit that was still left and I created and updated the page List of Israeli attacks on Palestinians, 2011 Passionless (talk) 03:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I stumbled across this and was curious about the new name - does this mean that it only includes armed attacks, and therefore bombings should be exclude? Or does the name mean all armed attacks, such as armed robberies, are therefore to be included? I think the criteria for entry may need to be defined given the article's title. - Bilby (talk) 07:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I think bombings should be included. Major unrest due to criminals, such as that in Kingston last year should be included too. School shootings as well. Personally I feel armed robberies in which people die should be included too. Victims are just as dead and excluding victims or criminal violence somehow feels biassed and not NPOV. If the page ends up with loads more criminal attacks than political well that will of itself give visitors a feel for the relative threat of each of these. filceolaire (talk) 15:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Well I don't know what the exact lines should be, but my general thoughts where for this to be about pretty much all attacks, EXCEPT for those done for personal monetary gain (like common bank robberies) and gang shootings which do not garner international attention and are not apart of a larger problem--Mexican gang attacks would still be included with these rules. All the events so far listed fit under these two rules. Passionless (talk) 23:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I think we need this politically-motivated violent attacks as opposed to just any attack. (the original motive for this)(Lihaas (talk) 18:03, 15 January 2011 (UTC)).

Unfortunately that leads to 2 problems.

First, we have to agree on a definition of "Politically motivated". The Kingston disturbances were by a bunch of drugdealers so that makes them criminal right? But they were to pressure the government to not extradite what-his-name and pressurising the gvernment is political right? If a terrorist group carries out a bank robbery is that political or criminal? What if they spout political rhetoric but spend all the money on fast cars?

Second we have to determine in each case what the motivation is. Personally I have no idea what the motivation of the Tucson shooter is. Any guess would be OR. Sometimes the perpetrator is never found. Does that mean it can't be included?

We should (in my opinion) include all notable attacks and leave it to others to tease out the motivation. filceolaire (talk) 22:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Its not as difficult (for example, bank robberies by political groups would be so because funding their activities are part and parcel of their political aims), but we need to keep out any and all attacks. This shouldnt turn into a list of mere attacks. Should the drug peddler in the bronx get mentioned here? Unfortunately under current criteria it would.

Thats not always the case (except for lone wolf terrorism, which so far Tucson seems so but theres no rush to add it). Of course such extraordinary circumstances like tucson would merit discussion. We dont want everything in discussion, but we can take something to discussion.

Also for example, the tunisia mass rioting is too simplistic too add here.

still though the "ongoing armed conflicts" addition is a good idea, it also need expansion but ive added a see also link instead.

Still the move was a little premature at the moment.(Lihaas (talk) 13:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)).

The question of whether bank robbers should be treated as terrorists has been a highly contentious issue, with politicians denouncing them as gangsters and claiming that to call them terrorists is to glamorise them. I would really rather we did not have to decide that sort of issue here on this page.

The Tucson shooting has already been added a few days ago.

Ongoing armed conflicts have a beginning and an end which is why I felt it appropriate to add them here. Any that end (or start) during the year would have that noted in the appropriate month section, with a section at the beginning listing those in progress at the start of the year. I see you have deleted that section. Can we put it back please?

The unrest in Tunisia has had shootings, riots, teargas. I can see that it might be more appropriate to move it to the on going conflict section but I am surprised you would want to omit such an obvious case of politically motivated violence after what you said above.

I agree that we don't want to include every shot fired but more serious incidents do deserve to be included. The threshold for including terrorist incidents seems to be 1 prominent person injured or 1 to 3 lesser known people dead. What should the threshold be for criminal violence? Should the threshold be different if the dead people are English speakers? On 14 Jan 2011 14 people were killed in a shootout between police and gangsters in Veracruz Mexico. I think that qualifies for inclusion here so I'm going to add it. filceolaire (talk) 19:16, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Ongoing Conflicts

I'm going to rewrite the introduction and the ongoing conflict section. Have a look and see what you think? How would you improve it? filceolaire (talk) 20:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Splitting and other stuff

I'm going to take the liberty and everything here to a unique article consistent with List of terrorist incidents. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit. Well, too late. I guess some editors have decided to create a redirect for List of terrorist incidents, 2011 unilaterally. Can we please continue with the standard? There needs to be a specific article on List of terrorist incidents. Also, this doesn't belong here. An article exists for active military conflicts. I don't know how editors got away with including 2010–2011 Tunisian protests with the Iraq War and Afghanistan War. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The redirect from "Terrorist incidents" was created automatically when we renamed that page to the name here after an extensive discussion. Please review the discussion above as it makes it quite clear why we moved away from calling these "Terrorist incidents". There is no consensus as to what is and is not a terrorist incident and there is a view that applying the terrorist label is POV but there is a consensus as to what is a violent attack so that is what we are recording here. Just changing the name has sidestepped a lot of pointless argument. We try and include enough info on each incident so our readers can then decide for themselves if they want to call any particular incident terrorist or not.

Ongoing conflicts Like Tunisia have lots of attacks. Every day there are shootings, just as there are bombings every day in Afghanistan and Iraq, so we have a single mention of each of these ongoing conflicts rather than fill the list with these incidents. This does duplicate the "List of ongoing conflicts" to some extent and we need to think about the best way to present this info.

Once we have this page sorted then, I agree, we will need to look at all the other "List of terrorist incidents" pages and change them to match this page. Lets get this page as good as we can first so we have a model we can put forward together. filceolaire (talk) 19:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I've been active in the other List of terrorist articles so I have a generally idea of what qualifies as a terrorist act. In the event of disputes, obviously editors discuss the issue in talk. This article arbitrarily changes the long-standing policy of enumerating terrorist acts by year and instead putting them into one unnecessary article. An article already exists for active military conflicts. All terrorist incidents should be moved to a specific article like List of terrorist incidents, 2010. Can you give me a reason why we should change something that isn't broken? Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Filceolaire has already answered this just above, its broken because of the extreme contention over what is or is not a terrorist attack. By recording all notable violent incidents people can easily decide for themselves without us giving our opinion, as we as editors are merely supposed to state facts with as much neutrality and lest opinion/argument as possible. Also stated in previous discussions is that although some may call attacks a terrorist attack, others believe these to be part of a 'heroic fight' or resistance movement. This also changes greatly with who the source is, many independence movements are labelled as terrorist organizations, such as the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam or the Palestine Liberation Organization, or as stated above the Boston tea party may be a terrorist attack or something else. The attacks at the beginning of the Cuban revolution could easily be called terrorist attacks, but are today referred to as an "armed revolt". Passionless (talk) 02:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not debating any of that. This article has essentially ended the community-accepted List of terrorist incidents standard. Terrorist incidents occuring this year should be moved to List of terrorist incidents, 2011 consistent with List of terrorist incidents, 2010, List of terrorist incidents, 2009, etc..etc...And I said before, twice, whether a violent act is classified as terrorist act or not is to be discussed in talk. Most of the content outside of the terrorist incidents is simply redundant. This is quite comprehensive: List of ongoing military conflicts. So no need for mentions of unique conflicts here. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see, so you just want it back your way, and we should just forget our discussions on why this new way is better. Passionless (talk) 08:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

This isn't "my" way. It is the community's way. Over 20+ articles act as a precedent to support another List of terrorist incidents article. We have List of terrorist incidents, 2010. Why stop now? Your concerns about what constitutes terrorist acts are very common and heavily discussed in each List article. Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Community has a new way. This new way includes not labelling, instead we just present facts. If I was apart of these "heavy discussion" I would claim they were freedom fighters each time. Passionless (talk) 09:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)