Talk:List of terrorist incidents, January–June 2011

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Crime (Rated List-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Lists (Rated List-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Terrorism (Rated List-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on terrorism, individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Years (Rated List-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Years, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Years on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Politics (Rated List-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Norway 2011 Attack[edit]

Where is that on the 2011 list? That was a terrorist attack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

It happened in July. Rymatz (talk) 11:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Terrorist incidents 2011[edit]

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 (talk) 20:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Lets keep both article separate. (talk) 17:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I would like to keep article. Carachi (talk) 17:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Lets keep both article separate.Asdgdsgdgad (talk) 13:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


  • 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 (talkcontribs) 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:

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)).

Lets keep both article separate. (talk) 17:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I would like to keep article. Carachi (talk) 17:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Lets keep both article separate.Asdgdsgdgad (talk) 13:10, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


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.


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[edit]

...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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)

I disagree with this. If you kill/terrorise to advance a specific goal, its TERRORISM. So we should probaly put back the "List of Terrorist Incidents" in 2011 list, just rename it "List of incidents categorized as terrorism" or something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Niger incident[edit]

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[edit]

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)
It should be added here, as part of the defense for it on the 2011 talk page, for inclusion purposes it's being called "an act of domestic terrorism". Ltcb2412 (talk) 09:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


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)
thats why the title move was a little premature, there are no time contraitns to move it.
we already have a more comprehensive page, dont know why we need details here. a realted like should suffice.
re: runisia is done on the motive that it is not organised action and more a mass movement to which the ongoing links is jore appropriate.
the threshold used to also be failed attacked incidenteds (where it was notable and politically motivated).
i have always looked to add mexico's shootings though previously didnt hav the reason under the old title(Lihaas (talk) 03:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)).

Ongoing Conflicts[edit]

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[edit]

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)
We had heavy ongoing discussion here. We did not achieve any consensus.
One proposal was to create an agreed standard for what is a terrorist incident. As there is no accepted definition of terrorism therefore it would be a Wikipedia definition and would be Original Research. If the definition depended on the motive or employment status (state/non-state) of the perpetrator then we would have to determine that before the incident could be included - more Original Research. This proposal was rejected.
Another proposal was to only include an incident where a reliable source had called it terrorism. This would exclude nearly all the incidents listed here because the major news agencies avoid using this label, but would mean we could include the Wikileaks release of US gov't cables because Joe Biden called that terrorism. This was generally felt to be a gross distortion so we rejected that too.
Who is this community you mention? The community here has examined the issue and arrived at a consensus. filceolaire (talk) 10:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
The issue here is not to debate terrorist groups or freedom fighters but the legitimacy of this article. Wikipedia hosts over 30 List articles that enumerate specific terrorist incidents. So why change? In any case, there is no reason to include "armed conflicts" when an article already exists for such information. The war in afghanistan and african protests have no relation to each other. Wikifan12345 (talk) 11:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
the most important was to duiscuss a creiteria that ive asked a thousand times. if we did that then crisis wouldbe solved. this move i dont entirely agree with either.
im partially supportive of wikifan's in that we need to have a greater consensus criteria even though the move to the currenly warticle was NOT widely supported. (and likely to move again sometime, bnut i dont want to edit warover it)(Lihaas (talk) 03:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)).
I don't really care about criteria. Every List article includes a long, tedious discussion about controversial attacks that some editors don't consider terrorist incidents. Check this out. Editors here cannot design their own criteria for what constitutes a terrorist act. Incidents would have to be discussed on a case-by-case basis. But right now we're wasting time. If editors are still hung up on criteria than that discussion should be moved to a new (not re-direct) List of terrorist incidents, 2011. List of armed conflicts and attacks, 2011 is too ambiguous to take seriously. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Wikifan we had that discussion on criteria, right here on this page before the name was changed, and there was no consensus on what should be included - it is all documented above. The only argument you have presented in favour of changing the name back is that this is the practice other pages have used and that there is a consensus for that name. If there was a consensus for that name it appears to have changed - based on the discussions here. We don't want to waste our time on the interminable arguments over the meaning of words - thats why we changed the name. So far you haven't presented any argument why that way was better. filceolaire (talk) 00:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to assume good faith here. I appreciate the criteria issue. But, like I said before - I don't care about it. The only issue I have, an issue that hasn't been addressed, is that this article effectively ends what the community has generally accepted for terrorist incidents. List-style articles have been the standard going from List of terrorist incidents, 1970 all the way to 2010. Ultimately, a small group of editors cannot invent their own criteria for terrorist acts through general discussion. It would take a binding-community consensus probably arbitrated by an admin. General policy and logic says controversial incidents should be debated on a case-by-case basis. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
If you want you can go and change all those articles to conform with the new standard. The articles are quite terrible, the lists are merely a testament of how often the word terrorist is thrown around than about the events. Just looking at List of terrorist incidents, 2000, I see attacks on military barracks and warships being classified as terrorism, really?? There are also cases of vandalism-by ELF- being listed as terrorism... Passionless (talk) 03:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Clearly you aren't understanding my point. List articles for terrorist incidents are supported by a strong precedent that has gone unchallenged by the community. It makes very little sense to replace the simple "List of terrorist incidents, 2011" with an article that can potentially host incidents beyond terrorism. Like I said before, numerous articles exist for on-going conflicts. Including wars, protests, rebellions, whatever that did not start in 2011 makes no sense whatsoever. At all. I cannot emphasize this enough. A mediator will probably tell you the same thing. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
your only point is that 'this is the way we used to do it so we must always do it this way forever!', I've tried to discuss this matter with you, but no more, besides you know that if we were to change the title to what you wanted you would then be banned from editing this page. Passionless (talk) 07:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
No, my other point is that numerous articles exists for on-going conflicts. It makes no sense to include wars, rebellions, or protests that did not start in 2011 in an article about 2011 terrorist incidents. If anything, if this article is going to remain then it should be independent of the standard List articles. The List of terrorist incidents, 2011 should become an original article. Sound fair? Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
the debate on the mvoe was quite unilateral as there was plenty of scope to go to discuss beofre the move.
the criteria was barely discussed as well, which would solve "terrorism" issue in the interim. (granted WP:CONSENSUS CAN CHANGE)
THis way we open up to any shotting or stabbing or bronx burglary which is besides the point to p;olitical attacks. I dont mind a move, but would like it further refined to politics, which it de factois but we need to de jure-etise it..(Lihaas (talk) 13:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)).
after a little reorg. im starting to come to term with the article, although i would like some sort of rule to limit this to political or pseudo-political attacks and officially kep out any and all "attacks"(Lihaas (talk) 21:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)).
I'm not opposed to the article but I don't believe it is a suitable replacement for List of terrorist incidents, 2011. The first half of the article is merely regurgitated information from List of ongoing military conflicts. It's hard to prove these conflicts, along with rebellions and protests, as part of an umbrella of terrorist incidents. I don't think it is too outrageous to suggest List of terrorist incidents, 2011 be moved to a unique article and stripped of its redirect status. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
This topic has been discussed ad nauseam. Passionless -Talk 02:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

And no editors have honestly managed to come up with an alternative solution. The content within the article has stretched beyond the perimeter of terrorism so unless editors want to lobotomize this article it is about time we move any relevant mentions of real acts of terror to a unique page solely about terrorism. Is this not reasonable? Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I do agree with you at least somewhat. ive tried again and again to 1. solidify a ciriteria, and 2. suggest some other moe with more discussion but dont get muhc response so i guess my hands are tied.
i also tried removing the ongoing conflicts with a requisite link bt was reverted and without support id be warring(Lihaas (talk) 05:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC)).

I suggest someone file a third opinion request or simply ask an administrator that is a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Terrorism to weigh in. I too am concerned about sparking an edit war over a conflict that should have been resolved days ago. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Talk:List_of_armed_conflicts_and_attacks,_2011#Criteria(Lihaas (talk) 08:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC)).
That's a totally unrelated discussion. I am not questioning the criteria of what qualifies as a terrorist act. I've already been involved in several discussions in other List articles about individual acts of violence. The core issue is whether this article is a legitimate successor to List of terrorist incidents, 2010 of if the article has evolved into something beyond terrorist acts. Reviewing the article, any reasonable mediator will tell you the content is no longer consistent with the narrow perimeters set in other List terrorist articles. I implore editors involved in this article to support a unique List of terrorist incidents, 2011 while continue building this article into something different. Wikifan12345 (talk) 12:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Wikifan12345 is correct here. If people want to amend the title and scope of this article to include incidents which are not called "terrorism", then they should cease trying to pretend this article is a list of "terrorist incidents" by adding to to unrelated templates and categories. O Fenian (talk) 12:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree with that, though this article still is the successor of the "list of terrorist incidents, year" articles. We include all events that would have been added to a "list of terrorist incidents, 2011" plus all those notable events on the edge. Passionless -Talk 12:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
This is not a successor article. This is an article covering a far wider scope that includes some terrorist incidents, which form a small percentage of the article. O Fenian (talk) 12:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Also refer to John Vandenberg's comments here, where he says "As an aside, I am concerned that the 2011 article in this series has been renamed (see Talk:List_of_armed_conflicts_and_attacks,_2011#Renaming) while the many other articles in this series have not been". This article has not just been renamed, the entire scope of it has been changed to include incidents that are not terrorism. O Fenian (talk) 12:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm in support of renaming previous articles, but too lazy/busy to do so myself. Passionless -Talk 12:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
i too think its a legitimate sister article as it is an attempt to resolve disputes arising over pov. although, i would favour further refinement of some sort.
Vandenberg's comments about his opinion thereof was out of scope of an Arbcom request where comments/discussion are more suited here(Lihaas (talk) 17:13, 21 January 2011 (UTC)).
Back on point, are we green light to move all terrorist incidents to a new unique article? More than half the article is about historic conflicts that are not about terrorism or 2011. Like I said before, most of the information is simply regurgitation from List of ongoing military conflicts, List of modern conflicts in the Middle East, etc. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

NO, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT Passionless -Talk 00:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Uh? It is quite clear the article has nothing to do with terrorism or 2011. It has no relationship with List of terrorist incidents, 2010. The policy you cite acts as an insult rather than a persuasive counter. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
"editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an unsupportable allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has rejected it, repeating it almost without end, and refusing to acknowledge others' input or their own error." We have fully discussed your concerns, it seems to me you are alone in your viewpoint that this page is not the succesor of the terrorist attacks by year pages, yet while the discussion was happening, you continued to repeat the same thing continuously without replying to point raised by other editors.Passionless -Talk 01:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
The policy doesn't apply here. For starters, my "viewpoint" was seconded by an uninvolved user:

Wikifan12345 is correct here. If people want to amend the title and scope of this article to include incidents which are not called "terrorism", then they should cease trying to pretend this article is a list of "terrorist incidents" by adding to to unrelated templates and categories.

Second, there is nothing fringe or minority POV to suggest half of the article is simply copy and paste from other list articles that I listed numerous times above. I am not being tedious here, it is a simple fact. I personally don't care about this article particularly. It will probably end up being moved, deleted, or merged into another but all I care about is removing the redirect for List of terrorist incidents, 2011. This article has little to do with terrorist incidents or 2011.
So unless the community thinks there is something bizarre about continuing the unchallenged policy of List-terrorist articles, I'll take the liberty and create a new List of terrorist incidents, 2011 unless editors can find a reason not to. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:49, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
to wikifan: to reiterate i did suggest removing the info that was repeasted from the ongoing conflict list. Though those who opposed more than likely di sd so working on the premise that the previous conflicts are still concurring in 2011. the discussion on this page already consists of the definition of terrorism (which wa the reason for the move in the first place)
We cant keep going back to the past because WP:Consensus can change and thats whats [in progress] here (and also discussed in 12010)(Lihaas (talk) 08:10, 22 January 2011 (UTC)).
I have brought the matter of Wikifan's persistance to attention here Passionless -Talk 22:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, at least a moderator will get the chance to look at the article. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:58, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Incidents in Iraq and Afghanistan[edit]

Some incidents in Afghanistan and Iraq have been added to the page. Should we move these to Timeline of the Iraq war and Timeline of the Afghan war? or start adding other incidents from Iraq and Afghanistan here? filceolaire (talk) 00:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

No. The wars shouldn't even be listed. The conflicts did not start in 2011. Afghanistan and Iraq are noted at List of ongoing military conflicts and List of modern conflicts in the Middle East. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
You could either add them to Timeline of the Iraq War/Timeline of the War in Afghanistan (2001–present)-though they are kinda dead pages- or you could create 2011 in Iraq/ add it to 2011 in Afghanistan. Passionless (talk) 03:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


see to expand User:Lihaas/List of terrorist incidents, 2011 and User:Lihaas/List of state terrorist incidents, 2011(Lihaas (talk) 13:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)).

done the former, pending the latter.(Lihaas (talk) 18:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)).

new ideas[edit]

ive tried some new ideas. the state/non-state thing was discussed and suggested here. the perpetrator and "notes" part is my own, possibly the latter may be reverted as pov, at which point we can discuss changes.

ps- whos gonna give ma "what a great idea" barnstar? ;)(Lihaas (talk) 13:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)).

My worry is that for a lot of incidents we don't know for sure who did it. How do we know if the perpetrator was sponsored or employed by a state? We can guess and probably be right most of the time but I would really rather not have Wikipedia doing that guessing. Why can't we just list the incidents and not call them terrorism? filceolaire (talk) 20:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
im not suggesting we call it terrorism. as per current state the claimed or strongly likely ones are listed with others left blank in the "perpetrator" column, is that okay with you?(Lihaas (talk) 20:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)).
I like having state / non-state as columns which can be left blank until we know. A very elegant solution. Thank you. filceolaire (talk) 21:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
wheres my barnstar? ;)
i tried fiddling (mucking?) with your edit a bit, see if its okay now. if not we can discuss,(Lihaas (talk) 21:17, 20 January 2011 (UTC)).
Looks ok to me.
On the state/nonstate issue. I wonder if these columns could be combined so it could be sortable to group the State/non-state/both/unknown incidents. Sorting doesn't seem to work at the moment. This might save a little real estate too. filceolaire (talk) 22:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
what do you propose writing in that column? currenty a check mark seems more workable and shor then adding more characters to the column(Lihaas (talk) 22:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)).


Wouldnt the burning as related to the ongoing Arab world protests count as a violnent attack, if not attack then just conflict. we could add that here.(Lihaas (talk) 18:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)).

Yes. Self immolation is not so common that this page will be swamped and is a particularily dramatic form of violent political protest that gets significant coverage in reliable sources. I think that is enough to distinguish it from other suicides and I agree we should include these here. filceolaire (talk) 20:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
All or just the big ones Mohamed Bouazizi#List of copycat incidents(Lihaas (talk) 20:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)).
We could group them by day and by country. 5 in Algeria on 15/16; 4 in Egypt on 17/18; 1 in Mauritania. filceolaire (talk) 21:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
not bad, id approve. if you want to do it..(Lihaas (talk) 21:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)).
No citations for any of these so they are not going in here yet. filceolaire (talk) 23:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
the most notable Algerian, tunisian and Mauritanian ones are sourded. (pretty sure at least 1 egyptian one is)(Lihaas (talk) 05:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)).

lone wolf tag[edit]

appreciate the tag instead of deletion, thanks.

but to discuss the issue, "lone wolf terrorism" by the very definition is something tht is highly unlikely to warrant a specific cite. So i was wondering what kind of cite is being sought? is it that the perpetrator essentially worked by himself. That is to some degree already cited on the requisite pages. Salman Taseer's page already says so (even though he had rhetorical support), while the Tucson shooting was somewhat still ambiguous (though "obivious" with the political reactions (which could count as the neccesary cite))(Lihaas (talk) 18:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)).

You will find the answers you need at Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. Your opinion that things are "lone wolf terrorism" has no place in Wikipedia articles. O Fenian (talk) 18:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
on Tucson i guess we can agree on that. go ahead and use the <!-- --> hide tags for lone wolrf terrorism there as it seems currently uncertain per this talk page. but for Taseer see his article. numerous statements and RS' suggest he worked alone.(Lihaas (talk) 19:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)).
You might also want to read Wikipedia:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, since we have been here before. I will be removing any remaining unsourced claims in 24 hours time. There are presently two of them. O Fenian (talk) 19:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Im trying to be perfectly civil and discuss the issue but it turns out you need to read that pattern of disruptive edits are more than 1 editor here has clearly seen your changes here as such.
ive also already agreed to your 1 suggestion here while TRYING to discuss the other but you still refuse to DISCUSS citing your whim and demand. 24 hours doesnt constitute an acceptable consensus period particularly on controversial articles.(Lihaas (talk) 19:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)).
I like what has been done with the table - adding columns lets us label incidents as state / non state etc if we have the info but we lets us add the incident and leave this blank initially if the info is not available from reliable sources. filceolaire (talk) 21:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't like the lone wolf terrorist claim either. I find it odd to call him a terrorist for killing a single man, when many others who have done the same like John Wilkes Booth or Lee Harvey Oswald-both killed US presidents, are only called murderers not terrorists. There is also an alright chance that he was not alone, but could have been hired by either an organization or a state to kill him- though I guess until proven otherwise he is alone. I think calling it simply an assassination would be much more neutral and would follow the lead of many other politician murderers. Passionless -Talk 09:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
i presume your talking about the AZ shooter? if so then ive already removed/hidden that. Though for the Pakistani governor's shooting, it is written on his page that the guy had explicit politicial motivations and that he [more than likely] worked alone(Lihaas (talk) 11:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC)).
Oh, no, I was talking about the Pakistani. Of course he had a political motive-every politician who is assassinated was over politics-or the killer was a nutjob, but anyways couldn't we label the perpetrator a lone wolf assassin. All he did was kill one guy, it's not like he hurt uninvolved civilians or blew up a building. Passionless -Talk 11:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Im confused. He is already labeled as such okay, i get it. you mean assassin instead of terrorist. Ive removed terrorist but left as lone wolf. see if you like that, if not then add assassin.Lihaas (talk) 11:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Try adding sources, not your opinion. This is basic Wikipedia policy that has been explained to you time and again. O Fenian (talk) 11:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I added a ref for saying he is a lone wolf. Passionless -Talk 12:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


and you have the gall to suggest others are disruptive editors:

"Insurgents carried out a surprise attack on an army unit in Narathiwat's Rangae district Wednesday night, killing four soldiers--including an army company commander--and wounding six others. / The attack occurred just two days after the government extended its emergency decree in the three southernmost provinces of Narathiwat, Pattani and Yala, and only hours after Deputy Prime Minister Suthep Thaugsuban and Army chief Gen Prayuth Chan-ocha returned to Bangkok from a day-long visit in Pattani." + "He said the attackers were believed to come from Pattani's Mayo district and planned to attack in the district of Rangae." + South Thailand insurgency = WP:Common sense (WP:IAR also exists if need be)
granted, your WP:Bold queries are reasonable at times, but then you have to discuss your grievance.(Lihaas (talk) 19:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)).
I have made my points as clear as can possibly be, if you cannot bring your edits to certain articles inline with policy, then I will simply move to have you banned from editing the articles in question. O Fenian (talk) 19:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
put your money where your mouth is!!!!!!!!(Lihaas (talk) 20:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)).
Please tone it down both of you. O Fenian; can you phrase you warnings as if you assume good faith on everyone elses behalf? Please? The sources for the Lone Wolf label may not be quite good enough but is it really that outrageous? filceolaire (talk) 21:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
god knows ive tried olive bracnes.(Lihaas (talk) 21:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)).

Incidents in Iraq, Afghanistan, Gaza and Somali hijackings[edit]

I've moved the afghan incidents to Timeline of the War in Afghanistan (2001-present). If the Gaza, Iraq and Somalia are listed in the Ongoing Conflicts then those incidents should be moved too or maybe we should take them off the list of conflicts. Is the war in Iraq over? Is the somali piracy an ongoing conflict or just a series of incidents? filceolaire (talk) 22:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

There of lots of other conflicts which have been added here which are in cease fire at the moment so we are seeing isolated incidents which should go in the list. Does that make sense to you? Can anyone come up with a better name for this page which makes clearer what should get included and what left out? filceolaire (talk) 21:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I dont see why incidents in ongoing confclits need neseccarily be out. theyre still incidents as such.
I would also think either "List of politically-motivated attacks" or "List armed conflicts and attack incidents" (the latter also then being similar to the old format.). And then we just come up with some criteria base and use it as a hidden note on the top of the page and then leave dscussion room for truly controversial ones.(Lihaas (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2011 (UTC)).
I don't know right now about the criteria, but as for Palestine related incidents, I have full coverage-11events so far this year- at List of Israeli attacks on Palestinians, 2011. Maybe we could re-instate the prominent message that those attacks get their own page. Passionless -Talk 22:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
that would be pov to de-select 1 region alone and include others. If the general "ongoing conflict" list is here, i dont see why this should be restricted to a wikilink(Lihaas (talk) 08:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)).

new criteria NEED OTHER OPINIONS[edit]

reviewing the section above im paraphrasing what we need. the time is now to put your input as consensus cant wait forever.

some background info:
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.
and also preliminary suggested criteria which can and probably should be reviewed/changed/ehnanced
  1. Acts by designated groups could also count. (though wed need to set designated by whom)
  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) 23:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)).
I've actually decided to spare a few minutes and read the article. The problems are many. Editors have managed to divide terrorist acts by non-state and state actors. This is suspect because countries are not terrorist organizations and cannot be placed in the same category as Al Qaeda or the Taliban. But this is precisely what editors have concocted here in blatant violation of basic guidelines and general logic. No reliable sources exist to support this content. List of terrorist incidents, 2010 should serve as a template for future terrorist list-related articles. Wikipedia is not a blog and editors shouldn't be allowed to treat it like their own personal soap box. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
First, appreciate your response here
Secondly, designated terrorist organisations are NOT the only ones able to perpetrate terrorism, that fact being one of the main reasons discussed here (note the columns were not unilaterally added here but suggested on talk first) Terrorist, as defined in numerous and sometime controversial wats, apparently varies. the FBI definition listed in John Pynchon Holms is post-Sept 11 "Terrorism: Todays Biggest Threat to Freedom" suggests terrorism as "force or intimidate or furtherance of political or socal objectives"
While that can never be the factual accurate alone for its state biases (the FBI is a state institution), it is an also academically notable definition in reference to political goals.(Lihaas (talk) 08:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)).
That doesn't really address my original point of editors ignoring reliable sources and not adhering to basic editing guidelines. Why didn't editors simply re-create another List article in the same vein as List of terrorist incidents, 2010, List of terrorist incidents, 2009, List of terrorist incidents, 2008....?. Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Wikifan - We tried to have this discussion above. A number of arguments were presented for the current arrangement and against having a "List of Terrorist Incidents". You didn't respond there and now you have started a new discussion with the same assertions you made above. Please address the arguments. I will present them again below, each with a subsection. Could you respond to each of these - tell me if you agree or if you see a counter argument? Add more sub-sections if there are arguments you think I missed. filceolaire (talk)
Lihaas, I would highly recommend that you read the policy for a RfC at WP:RFC and following the guidelines for creating a proper RfC. Your obvious lack of a summary of past discussion and what is inhibiting consensus is only compounded worse by the amount of material on this talk page. This page is already long enough for an editor that is trying to contribute and they should not have to be stuck and basically just declare TLDR, and skip adding input completely. Also given the fact that you don't specifically reference what exactly you are requesting comment on, this basically just starts a new discussion between editors currently involved. If you can edit your original statement, or remove the {{pol}} template and create a new section with a proper RfC template, you may be substantially more successful with your request. Ltcb2412 (talk) 09:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Wikifan. My favorite definition of terrorism is the one proposed by Boaz Ganor: "Terrorism is the deliberate use of violence aimed against civilians in order to achieve political ends." If Taliban, Haqqani Network, and al-Qaeda members are freedom fighters, than Anders Behring Breivik is also a freedom fighter, and yet Wikipedia calls him "Norwegian terrorist." According to the Geneva Conventions all military forces including guerrillas must wear uniforms or distinctive clothing so that it is clear that they are combatants. Taliban, Haqqani Network, and al-Qaeda are, according to the Geneva Conventions, terrorists, because they do not wear distinctive clothing and they hide among the civilian population. During WWII American and British troops shot such terrorists on the spot - no military trial was necessary. Excerpt from Third 1949 Geneva Convention: "if resistance movements are to benefit by the Convention, they must respect the four special conditions contained in sub-paragraphs (a) to (d)... '(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance' (30): for partisans a distinctive sign replaces a uniform... and must be worn constantly, in all circumstances..." source: Quinacrine (talk) 22:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Other sources are inconsistent in what they call terrorism[edit]

The Criterion used in the 2010 list is that incidents would only be included if someone called the incident terrorism. The problem with this was that in most cases people call an incident terrorism in order to condem it so that is POV. Those Reliable sources which strive for a neutral POV tend not to use the Terror label. The Wikileaks cables can be called a terrorist incident, because Joe Biden said so, but shootings in Pakistan can't because the BBC doesn't use that label. This was felt to be unsatisfactory. filceolaire (talk)

Joe Biden is not an authority on terrorism. Comprehensive lists and reports of terrorist organizations exist provided by world bodies (EU, UN, USA, etc...) and those should be used as guidelines. Suicide bombings, deliberate attacks on civilians, or acts of violence by terrorist groups don't need to be discussed or debated. Really, 95% of all incidents are easily verifiable. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
the list boave in this section should suggest criteria we are suuggesting that you can and should and are welcome to comment on.
to say really anything "don't need to be discussed or debated" will nevber help your view. abd then we also need a criteria for the other 5%(Lihaas (talk) 01:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)).
You say Joe Biden is not an authority on terrorism then say the USA is a reliable source for deciding what is terrorism. Is everything a terrorist organisation does terrorism? If the EU, UN, USA have lists that you believe we could follow then post links to these lists so we can consider them. Are there lists by other regional groups? You say 95% of incidents can easily be classified and yet the start of the year saw constant arguing right here over what could be included with many incidents which appeared to meet your criteria having to be left out because no RS used the terror label. Please set out your argument so we can consider it. filceolaire (talk) 22:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
ditto, said it time and time again that we cant wait for someone else to label as such with all their inherent biases(Lihaas (talk) 02:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)).

To create our own criteria would be Original Research[edit]

The other strategy suggested was for Wikipedia to come up with a set of objective criteria of our own for what can be included in a List of Terrorist incidents. Effectively we are coming up with our own definition of terrorism or siding with one of the many existing definitions and against all the others. That is Original Research. filceolaire (talk) 15:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I digress on the grounds that we are using RS sourced criteria per those wikipages which would not be OR. The key being we need some criteria for inclusion to avoid this debate every year.(Lihaas (talk) 01:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)).
In practice we don't seem to have had much problems with deciding what to include since the name changed. filceolaire (talk) 22:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I was the one who proposed the title we have now, only because it is the exact same title as seen in the Portal:Current events which I edit regularly. We get by there without complaint if we choose to put an article in the Armed conflicts and attacks section or elsewhere. Here is what the outline of the category was when Blue Crest suggested the title- "Armed Conflicts & Attacks--including warfare, terrorism (including most bombings), genocides, organized rioting which involves violence on either side (e.g. Iran & Thailand), coup d'tats, martial law declarations, most assassinations, etc. Does not include random acts of violence or most murders (that would be Law & Crime)." The full discussion can be found here...minus the martial law part I think its pretty good.Passionless -Talk 02:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Any set of criteria would mean many incidents would be excluded[edit]

Another problem with creating objective criteria for calling something terrorism is that Original Research would be needed to establish many of the suggested criteria e.g. if the motive was political or criminal. If the motivation is unknown (as in the recent Tucson shooting) then - guessing what the motivation is would be OR. Even criteria such as whether the perpetrator was a state or a non-state actor is not always clear. In practice we would have to exclude a lot of incidents which probably are terrorism because we couldn't prove they are. Expanding the list to cover other sorts of incident means incidents can be included here even if information is incomplete with additional information added when it is confirmed. filceolaire (talk) 15:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

1. per above section just beofre this
for unknown wed leave it blank till then as you (?) suggested above with good reason.
stqte vs. non-state is usually clear, for the few instances (conspiracy theories) a discussion here should do. (again one o f the criteria was to leave this page open for those rare instances)
expanding the list broadly is what i had a prob about and it seems others like wikifan.(Lihaas (talk) 01:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)).

Having a list for terrorist incidents gives Undue Weight to this type of incident[edit]

Expanding the list to cover other types of violent attacks also means that other incidents can be included here - such as school shootings, serious criminal attacks such the Kingston troubles last year, actions by states. To list only one sort of incident while excluding others seems to give undue weight to the incidents included. This is remedied by including a broader range of incidents. filceolaire (talk) 15:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

States are not terrorist organizations. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
thats exactly what we need to keep out, random hshootings.
per wikifan, the definition of terrorism and the page is NOT only about terrorist organisation. thats really they key here. there was discussion about to include state and non-state terrorism. if your suggestion is on that, then you should contribute to a discussion of the definition of terrorism.(Lihaas (talk) 01:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)).
I'm not suggesting states cannot terrorize countries or populations. But the general consensus is sovereign nations shouldn't be placed in the same category as say...the Taliban or Al Qaeda. I'm not opposed to including states, but naturally any acts of terror would have to be verifiable and supported by reliable sources. I cannot emphasize this enough. I'm looking at the ref in the article and as far as I can tell none even suggest operations carried out by the CIA qualifies as terrorism in the same tradition of Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups mentioned alongside. Wikifan12345 (talk) 16:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Weren't the Taliban the government of Afghanistan at one time? Why should there be a page devoted to non-state parties when the people killed by states are just as dead? What is so special about terrorism that it deserves a special page? What is wrong with having a page that includes various types of incident? Why do we need to keep out the Tucson shooting and other similar incidents? Why don't we include them in the list but not call them terrorism? That's 6 questions. I would be grateful for any responses to any of them. filceolaire (talk) 22:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
This article should solely be about terrorism if it to be part of the List of terrorist incidents family. Everything from here to [1] should be removed. The conflicts have nothing to do with terrorism or 2011. I can't stress this enough. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Terrorism is only a part of this article, I can not stress this enough, whether state or not state it does not matter. Please see my addition to the section above -"To create our own criteria would be Original Research". Passionless -Talk 02:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Wikifan's comments here are completely unsubstantiated based "it should be" says who? its not going to be so b./c you want it alone.
not sure about "But the general consensus is sovereign nations shouldn't be placed in the same category as say" can you then point us to the consensus?(Lihaas (talk) 02:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)).
Mainstream sources are very explicit about terrorism and terrorist incidents. This article is a radical change from the norm. The burden of proof rests against editors who want to change the status quo. I've asked numerous times if anyone here can show one RS that includes the CIA or US military alongside Al Qaeda or the Taliban. And like I said before, most of the article is not about terrorism or 2011. I'd say a lot of the edits are consistent with WP:SYN. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:22, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Lol, burden of proof, we in wikicourt now? a rough consensus-found in the top half of this talk page- was made after a long discussion which led to the change in the title and article content, you are the one wanting to make these '"radical change(s)". here's the CIA/US military as a terrorist organization and the Taliban was the government of Afghanistan for 5 years before the US attacked Afghanistan. Passionless -Talk 03:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Where is this consensus you speak of? The CIA and US military are not terrorist organizations, not in the sense Al Qaeda is. Any editor trying pushing that perspective in an encyclopedia should read WP:NPOV. The Iranian parliament is not a reliable source. The source could only support Iran's POV. Passion, honestly - what is the point of including conflicts that are not about terrorism in an article about terrorism in 2011? Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
theres really no point in going in the same cyclical arguements time and time aagain,. yet another disucussion for criteria has evolved into FOUR subsections and its going nowhere. right now it seems only wikifan is of his view with all others opposint per [[WP:CONSENSUS CAN CAHNGE.(Lihaas (talk) 07:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)).
Can you actually respond to my complaints above? No consensus has been reached. I have not violated any consensus. The article was created unilaterally. I am not the only one who has an issue with this article. The ANI filed by Passion was dismissed. Two admins not involved in the dispute did not agree with the unsubstantiated accusations made against my presence in the article. IF editors cannot prove their contributions with reliable sources then I think this dispute should be exported to Wiki project terrorism. The January section includes SYNTH. Editors have not shown a single RS that supports the belief that the US military is a terrorist organization in the same manner Al Qaeda is. Do you really want to move this dispute to OR board? Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
This statement by wikifan-"what is the point of including conflicts that are not about terrorism in an article about terrorism in 2011?" shows he is just trying to be beligerent and not trying to work with other editors. Claims that "The article was created unilaterally." is just nonsense-neither me or Lihaas-the two who can put up with you and support the move- moved the article to its new title. "Passion and Lihaas clearly (have) a POV interest"- assuming bad faith won't get you far or gain you friends. Passionless -Talk 19:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I haven't assumed bad faith and you're taking my comments out context. This isn't a personal dispute. At least not from my perspective. I ask you again, can you please show me a single reliable source that claims the US military is capable of committing terrorist acts in the same way Al Qaeda does? I keep hearing about this consensus but I don't see any. Could you please link me to this consensus? And yes, this article was created unilaterally and is barely recognizable in contrast with the 30 other List of terrorist incidents articles. Two uninvolved admins have dismissed your accusations against me here, so I suggest you refrain from the personal attacks. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:44, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
You are right that this is not a list of terrorist incidents and so it should not be included with the other 30 such lists. I will remove that nav box. There was a discussion here before this page was renamed and expanded. It's in the Renaming section above. The similarity between the US army and Al Qaeda is that they both attack people with bombs. The difference is that the US army drops the bombs from airplanes and is backed by a state while Al Qaeda delivers the bombs by hand and is a terrorist organisation. There are similarities and there are differences. A list is better than a category because we can include a description of the incident which clarifies this in a way that a Category:Terrorist incident label cannot. filceolaire (talk) 22:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
The article places the US military in the same category as Al Qaeda. Now, unless editors can find one reliable source to support that edit, then it should be removed immediately. It's been almost a week and no source has been given. In fact, a lot of the article is unverifiable. There is not one source from here to here. That's 2/3 of the article's content. So Filceo, since you concede that the article is not part of the List of terrorist incidents family, would you support removing the re-direct and moving terrorist incidents to a unique article that is solely about terrorism? Similar to List of terrorist incidents, 2010? Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:43, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I still support deleting the Category:Terrorist incident and renaming all pages from 1970-2010 to match the new format. And for the source you asked for I did give it to you, you rejected it because you did not like to be proved wrong, I would be a fool to believe giving you another source would please you. Passionless -Talk 23:50, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Passion, what new format do you speak of? The source you gave does not support the claim that the CIA is a terrorist organization like Al Qaeda. I was very explicit in my response:

The Iranian parliament is not a reliable source. The source could only support Iran's POV. Passion, honestly - what is the point of including conflicts that are not about terrorism in an article about terrorism in 2011?

Here is what wikipedia has to say on how content is written:

All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source. This means that a source must exist for it, whether or not it is cited in the article. Wikipedia must never be a first publisher.

See WP:ORIG and WP:VERIFY. Unless you understand how to use reliable sources and cite them appropriately, it is pointless to allow this discussion to continue. The article should be locked to registered users and the conflict should be mediated by a third party. I suggest we collectively file a request at medcab and notice at RS board. I don't want to see this dispute dragged into arbitration enforcement. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikifan, You propose calling in mediation and arbitration and locking the article over our civil discussion about content and presentation. Arbitration enforcement deals with uncivil behaviour. They don't do content disputes. Content disputes are dealt with by editors working together to create better articles than any one editor could on their own.
Above I listed 4 problems with the List of terrorist articles format. If you want to influence what happens here then you need to come up up with some suggestions for fixing those 4 problems and show how your suggestions are better than the solution we have come up with here. "There are 20 other pages with the same problems" is an argument for changing those pages, not an argument for changing this page to match them.
I would ask that you do not start a WP:FORK of this page. Instead I suggest you start a new section below with your suggestions for this page and the how they would improve the page: Why it would be better to have Terrorism in the title; Why it would be better to have different types of incident in different articles etc. etc. The current format does seem a bit unwieldy and I'm sure it could be improved. filceolaire (talk) 20:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Caucasus, Chechnya[edit]

Why ongoing conflict between Russia and North Caucasus is not mentioned? (talk) 16:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

it should be. add it by being WP:Bold(Lihaas (talk) 02:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)).

Criteria for this list[edit]

How is this for a start:

Armed conflicts and attacks will contain:

  1. All military acts between nations and within nations which are not part of a war. e.g. border violence in Cambodia/Thailand, US Drone attacks in Pakistan. Note - does not include the Israeli-Palestinian conflict which has its own similar page.
  2. All 'terrorist' attacks- bombings, shootings, IEDs, biological, chemical attacks. Includes attacks on both civilian and military targets.
  3. Assassinations of politicians, and military leaders. Ex.Salman Taseer, Mahmoud al-Mabhouh. Does include notables killed for politicised reasons, e.g. Theo van Gogh.Does not include muders of other notables such as John Lennon
  4. Large scale riots marked with large scale violence or (a) death(s). e.g. Tunisia, Iran, L.A. Does not include incidents like the party in which Victoria Snelgrove died. See List of riots
  5. War rape - e.g. DRC and Sudan. Does not include normal criminal rape, or even a serial rapist.
  6. Deadly incidents with rebel groups regardless of which belligerent is being offensive. e.g. FARC, Shining Path, Moro Islamic Liberation Front Does not include revolts which have become civil wars e.g. Tamil Tigers/Sri Lankan Civil War.
  7. Non-bloodless coup d'état- 2010 Nigerien coup d'état.
  8. Cyber/info warfare - not sure about this... Anonymous attacks, Wikileaks, Stuxnet.
  9. Piracy - unsure of this as well.

Other notes:

Not quite done, will be back later to continue...please make suggestions, add comments. Passionless -Talk 01:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

      • New thoughts-Riots which continue for days are to be grouped under one description, unless a very notable single event occurs within the riots.
      • For riot notability-any deaths or damage over $500,000.
And policy/sources to support this criteria is where...? Editors still haven't managed to find a single RS that supports the allegation that the US is committing acts of terrorism consistent with actions of Al Qaeda or registered terror group. This article has very little to do with terrorism. The article should be locked until these content disputes are resolved. Allowing SYNTH/OR to continue unchallenged is not helping the article at all. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Policy: WP:Ignore all rules, and just so you know, other editors do not have to fulfill your requests or even listen to you. Passionless -Talk 08:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Ignore all rules does not mean editors are allowed to make controversial edits without reliable sources. The article screams WP:OR and this was supported at the noticeboard. I'm not the one editing the article. Before we forward this dispute to behavioral enforcement, I suggest we send a request to an admin that belongs to Wikiproject terrorism and also file a request at WP:MEDCAB. I also believe a notice should be submitted to WP:RSN. If we can't come to a consensus, and we can't find reliable sources to support content, then perhaps it would be better to bring in an editor familiar with reliable source issues. I've been more than fair in this discussion...Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:39, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
The proposed criteria is VERY large and ungainly. Strongly recommend taking the usual approach to such wide criteria; which is to split it into constituent parts and tun this into a meta article; i.e. Armed conflicts and attacks, 2011 (links out to the sub-lists & details some of the most notable happenings, plus lists anything that does not fit in the sub-lists), List of terrorist attacks, 2011, List of armed conflicts, 2011, List of assasinations, 2011. This is really the only way to do it; the list is already getting overly long and it is just January :D --Errant (chat!) 12:42, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
ErrantX's is suggest would be plausible (though id think itd get more support after this becomes too long)
there was above several wikipedia cited definitions for terrorist. See United States and state terrorism as well. the definition is alsoc ited and can be added to the lead to clarify and SOURCED to RS
The following are sources defining terrorism vs. allegations here that they are OR. Read this to avoid cyclical arguements (they were also mentioned above)
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.
also off the bat: [2], [3], [4], [5](Lihaas (talk) 13:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)).
If an act is only alleged by some to be state-funded terrorism then I think it is not enough for us to list it as terrorism. Only when the majority of mainline sources accept something as an act of terrorism can we safely list it as such. Allegations such as those are for the main article about the incident --Errant (chat!) 13:58, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
One thing we discussed here was that all attacks (even attributed to recognised groups) are not going to explicitly mention the word terrorism. thats why we also need a criteria, based on cited definitions NOT just OR.
also bear in mind that sticking to the term "terorism" is not valid since this is NOT list of terrorism...its now a list of "armed conflicts and attacks" which means state or non-state its still an attack.
btw- thanks for the discussion that furthers this long-wibnded topic.
to further the initial criteria: i agree with 2,3,6 off the bat. the commonly accepted inclusions in the past as well. not sure 1 should be outight excluded because there are special cases even then (embassy bombings in Afghan, should there be an extraordinary hotel raid/siege, or barracks bombing similar to beirut in the 80's, that could be included. although id agree with removing the "run of the mill" usual bombings, for which we can have its own page if one doesnt exist with requisite "see also." 4 is plausible, but how do we define the scale? also not sure how to define "war rapes." does a single one count or mass rape? the latter being more plausible and even defined as motivated by politics. coup's seem plausible too, both blod and not. piracy is a given, and for cyber attacks we need to define scale cause we cant have just anything.
would also further like to see the word "politically-motivated" either in the title or the lead. and also my above suggestion: Acts by designated groups (based on sources of course, even if the term "terrorism" is not included); Acts labeled terrorism (unainimous agreement); and then consensus discussion for isolated incidents.(Lihaas (talk) 15:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)).
The real problem is that many editors have failed to consult general policy guidelines in their contributions here and in the article. How can editors honestly defend content without a single reliable source? IGNOREALLRULES, a policy cited by an editor responsible for almost half of the edits in the article, does not take precedence over WP:verifiability. So I agree, the article should be split but material not supported by reliable sources should be removed. I am glad the section on on-going conflicts has been [removed]. The next step would be renaming the article since it is no longer about "armed conflicts" but rather terrorist incidents. Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Well for war rape, I think it's only really reported when it happens on a large scale at least 50+, so I don't think that's a real worry.
I was wondering if we could remove the perpatrator column and move it back into the description. This would save a lot of room in length, as the empty space created by it is quite large, making the page seem much longer.
Also the Egyptian shooting on the 11th, should probably be removed as it seems to have been just a crazed man shooting at random people-even if a hate crime- for non-political reasons, it should be excluded with other everyday violent crimes.Passionless -Talk 20:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Also we need to warn people in the intro that other lists complete this one such as List of Israeli attacks on Palestinians, 2011. Passionless -Talk 20:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

If the list is renamed List of terrorist incidents then many of the incidents listed here will have to be removed because to include them would mean we are labelling the perpetrators as terrorists and such a label always needs a RS. There are dozens of different definitions and if we pick just one then that is OR and if we pick them all then there will be very few incidents anywhere that could not be included. Armed attack or violent attack is not such a contentious or pejorative label so we should be able to reach consensus on a set of criteria such as those at the top of this section.

To avoid Undue weight to the incidents included we need to have some rationale for why these are included and others excluded but I think such a rationale could be developed from the list above. I am wary of criteria that depend on the motivation of the attacker. This often unclear. I am in favour of including incidents which are not politocally motivated, such as school shootings. I think there is a case for even including criminal attacks where significant numbers are killed such as the recent shootout in Mexico where 7 gang members and one soldier died.

I agree with Wikifan that this discussion is rethinking work that has been done on the other List of terrorist incidents pages and I suggest he invite contributors to those pages or the Terrorism wikiproject to join the discussion here and help us develop a policy or a guideline which could be applied to those pages. I don't know of any general policy guidelines we are breaching here. Please be specific. Which policy? Which guideline? filceolaire (talk) 00:53, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

This list is the only article thus far to be expanded to include all armed conflicts and attacks and not just terrorist incidents, and even include incidents of state terrorism which were previously excluded. Therefore,
Also, are we going to expand all other years like this article, or simply split this large article into one page featuring only non-state confirmed terrorist acts and another one containing all other incidents? ~AH1(TCU) 18:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
The idea was to create a standard model here first before we go back and change the other articles to match. As you can tell we are still trying to create criteria for the list, so we still have some work to do before the big change over.
As for your idea of splitting, I think that would go against our main reason for the whole change, that being to remove the WP:LABEL of terrorism, the disputes over whether an attack is a terrorist attack or not, and how important of a source-who calls an act terrorism-is required for addition to the list. e.g.-some people called the wikileaks release of US cables a terrorist attack. Passionless -Talk 19:43, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
That's a prime example of an incident where use of the term "terrorism" is unreliably attributed by some commentators; it is an example where no mainstream media is calling it a terrorist incident/attack - and, as such, is a really bad example for why "list of terrorist attacks, XXXX" shouldn't exist. ;) In fact WP:LABEL even makes clear; use what the majority of sources are saying - if it is marked as a terrorist incident widely in the media, then it is. Easy. If it is not, then put it somewhere else. Simples :) Creating a crazily broad list isn't a fix for the purported problem --Errant (chat!) 11:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. Wikifan12345 (talk) 10:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
A majority of RS is still not good enough to state it as fact. Every incident would have to have uncontested support from all RS to be written as fact, and there is no way this could happen when we include non-western sources or even Reuters, which refues to call anything a terrorist attack. If you look at al-Qaeda or Kach and Kahane Chai neither of them are labelled terrorist organizations by wikipedia, even though they are called TOs by many nations, rather they are called what they are; militant groups and political parties. In the same way that is what needs to be done here, to call bombings bombings and shootings shootings. Otherwise we would be stating the opinion that something is a terrorist attack as fact which would go against WP:NPOV. Passionless -Talk 20:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
A majority of RS is still not good enough; umm, yes, yes it is. It's even enshrined in policy. Specific reference to it as fact seems a device to force requiring unanimous support (which it doesn't really need anyway in such vague terms). Terrorism is a convenience label used widely to describe certain acts, in our case applied by sources and used by us if representing the majority view. If the term can be reliably contested then we make careful editorial judgement over the due-weight of that contesting and then either make a note or discuss not using that term. It is all basic, fundamental editing stuff that happens all over the Wiki, nothing dramatic in it. Shoving it into a list with vague scope and rather dubious use of "state" and "non-state" is not really solving any of the issues and seems like a form of political correctness; i.e. a step back from simple encyclopaedic content. We do call al-Qaeda a terrorist group, so I have no idea what you mean there. Militant group is simply a descriptive name - here we could use "violent action by militant group", but instead we use the widely accepted "terrorism". Simple :) At the end of the day, we have to use common sense here. Where an action can reliably be disputed to be a terrorist act then we can deal with it as and when. A change in a general rule is a poor solution for a specific localised "problem". Otherwise we would be stating the opinion that something is a terrorist attack as fact which would go against WP:NPOV.; no idea what you mean here. NPOV is about representing the mainstream viewpoint whilst allowing due weight to other views. Now; if we can reliably come up with an alternative word or description that covers terrorist acts, and is simple, understandable and sourced, then I agree. Cramming it all into a list with state acts, piracy and other conflicts is just messy and using a hammer to crack the nut --Errant (chat!) 22:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
We do not call al-Qaeda a terrorist group, we state that numerous nations call al-Qaeda a terrorist group. That difference is what this whole thing is about. Even though it is a mainstream opinion Wikipedia still does not state that al-Qaeda is a terrorist group because of NPOV, specifically "Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice." Thus, Wikipedia cannot state that an incident is a terrorist attack, even the 9/11 attacks aren't called a TA but are called what they are; suicide attacks.
If you want a new title/criteria I'm open to suggestions as long as they don't label or express opinions as facts. I think a title such as "List of notable violent incidents, 2011" may be much better than the current title. Passionless -Talk 00:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Al Qaeda is considered a terrorist organization by most of the world. The CIA is not considered a terrorist organization by any mainstream organization and no reliable sources exist to support that claim. Errant's reasoning is solid. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
And yet there was a time when the CIA and Al Qaeda were allied (against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan). The "Terrorist" label does not tell us much about what Al Qaeda actually does. All it tells us is that some people don't like them. It's a POV label and if we include an incident in a "List of terrorist incidents" because one party called it that then we are endorsing that label and saying we agree with that party. We should avoid endorsing POV labels and that is why we changed the article name and expanded the scope so it includes violent incidents which have not been labeled terrorism. If you disagree then start a new section below with a specific proposal for how this page could be made better. filceolaire (talk) 18:04, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
The criteria is needlessly and confusingly broad. I'm pretty busy this month but hopefully in March, when the list will have grown horribly long, I'll have time to work a proper split proposal up. Your comment abouyt labels has some merit; but the bottom line is that the vast majority of people and sources consider incidents terrorist events, and so we really have go with that. *Not* labelling it seems POV (i.e. pointedly not noting it as a terrorist incident). Remember; neutrality is not about using bland neutral language, it is about representing the mainstream view. --Errant (chat!) 11:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure where you read that about neutrality but if you read WP:NPOV, you will see that we are to "Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as "widespread views", etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil." SO while we could state within an article that X thinks the attack is a terrorist attack, we cannot title an article list of terrorist attacks and place an attack on it because we would than be saying that wikipedia thinks this attack is a terrorist attack. Passionless -Talk 21:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Ahem, well, the issue with your example is that the word Terrorism is much more alike to Genocide; both are modern descriptive terms, both are modern crimes in many societies, both are widely used to describe events, both are emotionally charged and open to interpretation. It is absolutely fine to have a list of terrorist attacks, that is not about opinion, it is about representing the mainstream viewpoint per NPOV. All basic stuff. But, if we can come up with a word instead of terrorism would that work? I really think we need to get away from the state/non-state thing because I feel that is extremely dubious criteria to be using. Why do we even have those columns on the table? --Errant (chat!) 09:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


Ok, I really am uncomfortable with the way this list is presented, and I do appreciate the issues with use of the word terrorism. So how about this, use the current list as the overview then have the following sublists:

Anything not covered by the list could simply exist in this article, which would give a solid overview of the sublists. --Errant (chat!) 09:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

While I would be happy to see piracy get its own page (probably not by year but by decade) and hijackings should be posted here. If we split the attacks into the first two pages, a lot of bilateral aggresion between state and militants would be split so that one side is shown on one page while the other party in the conflict is on the other page. I also don't think the last 3 columns are necessary, and should be removed as they take up a lot of room, making the article perhaps twice the length it could be. Passionless -Talk 21:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
I tested it, by removing the two acts of piracy and the last three columns the table length goes from 4.5pages to 2.75pages. Passionless -Talk 21:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
If your happy with the piracy splitting out perhaps I will get a chance to do that over the weeked. So long as no one else disputes it? Regarding your other issue; I don't think it is a concern; looking at the current list only one of the items is a state attack (the drones). The dual ones you refer too only involve rescues by the state, and I think are better classed as "kidnappings". i.e. I am suggesting that the main perpetrators should classfy the event; i.e. if a state attacks someone it is an armed conflict, if it is an independent group that falls into the other areas. I'm mostly trying to suggest working away from the state/non-state definitions because they are something of editorializing on our part. So if we merge killings & armed conflicts together (i.e. "state" & "non-state") I'd accept that. --Errant (chat!) 22:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree that a piracy and hijacking list is appropriate. It should not be hard to get consensus on what is included there.
Each major ongoing conflicts could also have it's own list - even if the definition of a major ongoing conflict comes down to one that has it's own list.
Kidnappings could also have their own list. Where these are part of an ongoing conflict they could be listed there too.
Once those lists are established then this list here can decide if stuff also gets listed here. For instance if major incidents are excluded then all the Iraq and Afghanistan stuff would disappear from this page like the Israel/Palestine stuff.--filceolaire (talk) 20:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion to recreate List of Terrorist incidents in 2011[edit]

Due to this list's excessive length and wide mix of types of conflict I would like to bring up the possibility of remaking List of Terrorist incidents, 2011 using User:Lihaas/List of terrorist incidents, 2011 as a base and make another article list Millitary conflicts in 2011 or using a similar name. I find that this article mixes far to many different things into one and that acts of terrorism should be defined as separate from armed conflicts. Otherwise It is likely other article labled "List of Terrorist incidents,..." will need revision. Also cutting off at the last article in the series Terrorist incidents by year at 2010 is a sudden halt to and extensive archive of incidents labeled terrorism over many years. Stormchaser89 (talk) 05:00, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

There are a number of problems with this proposal:
  • There is no agreed neutral definition of terrorism. The definition proposed previously (anything that is called terrorism by a WP:RS) led to the grotesque situation of including Wikileaks (cf Joe Biden) but excluding suicide bombs (because the RS that report them think the T word is POV and don't use it).
  • In practice "Terrorism" is always used in a derogatory sense so it is not neutral. Wikipedia can report in an article that someone called an incident terrorism but if we include it in a "List of terrorist incidents" then wikipedia is saying we agree that it is terrorism and that is not NPOV.
  • All of the various definitions of terrorism that have been proposed would mean some types of violence are included and other types are excluded with the distinction being made on the basis of arbitrary factors such as the motive or the employment status of the perpetrator or the victim. Much better to include all the incidents and explain in the text which are political / criminal / religious / government / civilian / police / military / madman / lone wolf etc. Anything else gives undue weight to the incidents included.
I think Stormchaser is right about the other "List of terrorist incidents,...". They should all have their names changed and their scope extended. Until that is done I believe they should all have neutrality warning labels attached.
I think Stormchaser has a point about this list being too open but the only solution I can think of is to replace it with separate regional lists related to each conflict. Even if that happened I believe a world wide list is still in giving a little perspective on what is happening around the world.
I'm not that fond of the current name though but that is another thread--filceolaire (talk) 20:34, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

some links to consider[edit]

(strike when used)

[6][7](Lihaas (talk) 16:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)).

Inclusion criteria?[edit]

What exactly are the inclusion criteria for this list? "Violent attacks" is not very helpful. – ukexpat (talk) 18:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC) Oops, see above. – ukexpat (talk) 18:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


the us air force bombinds in pak need to be changes to the cia as its their drones.Lihaas (talk) 01:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done--Andres arg (talk) 18:19, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed page split[edit]

way too long., I propose per WP:Article size the page be moved to List of armed conflicts and attacks, January - June 2011 and then one for the 2nd half of the year List of armed conflicts and attacks, July - December 2011 Lihaas (talk) 07:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. So, will you take care of that?--Andres arg (talk) 20:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done (in 5 mins)Lihaas (talk) 08:22, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Original research tag.[edit]

This article contains incidents that are not called "terrorism" or "terrorist" by the source material, IE. the drone attacks. Further, the "state" and "non-state" sections are completely un-sourced. The state, versus non state section should be removed in keeping with the previous List of terrorist incidents articles. (all of which, from 1970 -2010 do not have an unsourced state versus non state section.) If the original research were removed from this page there would undoubtedly be enough room to fit the incidents in 1 article without having to split it up int 6 month sections. V7-sport (talk) 19:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

That's because the article was recently moved without discussion from List of armed conflicts and attacks, January – June 2011 - I've moved it back. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

A similar list for murders[edit]

I think there should be a similar list to include the articles in the Category:Mass murder by year. And that list should be linked in this article at "See also". These things look too similar to me: people with guns killing innocents because they are angry. —  Ark25  (talk) 03:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)