Is it not possible that some of the incidents here don't need to be here.
There are many every day reporting over a bomb being thrown, whereas if you look at previous years, they are grouped.
Take a look at 9/11 for example.
Thats all under one bullet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.15.57.146 (talk) 17:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
What is the criteria for inclusion in this list?
Does a source need to call an act terrorism or is this list based on judgement call according to the definition of terrorism? TIA --Tom21:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
For example: March 10
Mosul A bomb exploded in Mosul wounding nine civilians including a child.[1]
What? "gunman threw a hand grenade at a house where a wedding party was taking place in al-Rashidiya area, northern Mosul,” the source told Aswat al-Iraq news agency. That fits the profile of a terrorist attack. Terrorist=gunman, target=civilians, result=dead/wounded/trauma, etc... It doesn't need to say "officials consider this a terrorist attack", or "militant group x", or "terrorist" to be such a thing. I think the real problem is the source and if it is reliable. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Did you miss the reports about the fiances estranged boy friend vowing to take revenge if she ever married? Tom 00:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)ps, so to answer my first question, how we base this as a terrorist attack is based on an editor's judgement? Tom00:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Where does it say that? If that were the case, then no it wouldn't terrorism. I'm assuming we're using the definition of terrorism, but then that too is difficult to identify accurately. I think a group/person/organization promoting an ideology and deliberately targeting non/legal-combatants to create a state of fear is a bare-bones profile for a terrorist act. Also, if the source identifies it as terrorism. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
The citation doesn't mention the angry ex boyfriend, but that was the word on the street. I guess as long as the citations provide all the components of the definition of terrorism, like you listed, that should sufice. I would probably just use caution when deciding what to add. Anyways, Tom05:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I see that a rocket attack occured in North-Western Pakistan in the community of Landi Kotal killing 10 people and wounding at least 40 people. It is believed that the target was a military camp.
A bomb exploded at a highway intersection in southern Iraq targeting a police patrol killing one police officer and injuring two other police officers. Colonel Sadiq al-Hulu, the commander of Misan province emergency regiment was the target for the attack.
January 1st, 2009 Mogadishu January 2nd, 2009 Mogadishu Somalia, March 11, 2009 Mogadishu Somalia and March 19, 2009 Lebanon
January 1st, 2009, January 2nd, 2009: (Somalia) Although tragic that a family of four was killed in a mortar attack in Mogadishu, they were not the intended targets. The Presidential palace was and their deaths have been posted in War in Somalia (2006-2009). There have been a number of mortar attacks that have killed civilians in Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, and in Somalia. I believe it is a terrorist attack if a foreign organization, citizens, civilians are directly targetted and not in a battle between two opposing forces as occured on both January 1st and 2nd. If it is in a battle it is not a terrorist strike, however, if it is considered a terrorist strike there are at least 200 incidents in Iraq from 2008 to 2009 that need to be posted similarly as well no other shellings have been posted as a terrorist incident, even though they have occured in February targeting A.U. peacekeepers.
March 11, 2009: A landmine detonated in Mogadishu killing three security officials. No group claimed responsibility for the attack and on AllAfrica it was claimed that the landmine was from the clan-warlord days of the early decade as Somalia remains a heavily armed nation.
March 19, 2009: (Lebanon): This is non-state terrorism lists. A cluster bomb released by Israeli forces does not constitute a war crime or a terrorist incident.(Canadian87 (talk) 18:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC))
Removed the Lebanon one, however the Somalia attacks qualify as terrorist incidents. The attacks are all non-state, the militant groups are not considered part of the sovereign country (i.e, they don't "officially" run the country.). Please add all the mortar and shelling incidents you can find them. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Landi Kotel
User Wikifan145 has posted about a rocket attack occuring in the Kyber Pass killing three people. This incident is a terrorist incident however it occured on the Community Landi Kotel (BBC News) and it struck the commercial district of this Pakistani community killing 10 people and injuring 40, not killing just three. The BBC news also reports it occured on March 20, not the 21. If this could be edited that would be appreciated (Canadian87 (talk) 18:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC))
There is no evidence to suggest that this was little more than a gunbattle between Taliban insurgents and Afghan police deserving to be in Afghan war but not a terrorist incident. (Canadian87 (talk) 18:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC))
March 19 gunbattle is a insurgent attack, battle in Chakdara which is in the Afghanistan war but not a terrorist incident.
It states that Taliban forces actually arrested 14 of the attackers in this attack. Therefore, criminal activity as it looks like it is is not a terrorist incident. [1]—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuesday2009 (talk • contribs) 04:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
March 21, 2009 Afghanistan bombing
March 21, 2009
Afghanistan, Chaparhar district
7 killed
4 wounded
A suicide car bomber detonated his explosives at a police checkpoint in Nangahar province, Chaparhar district killing himself, six civilians and an Afghan police officer and injuring four other officers.
A bomb exploded on an overpass over a busy marketplace wounding seven people. The blast blew out windows of local shops and police officers and soldiers began stepped up patrols of the area.
Police conducting a raid in Saadiyah were the target of a booby-trap bomb as a massive explosion rocked the city when one of the houses they entered exploded. Two Iraqi police officers were killed and 8 others wounded.
{{Editprotected}} Since vandalism occured on this page at the middle of March, and resulted in editors having to step in and semi-protect this page, there has been no activity on this page since the 23rd of March. I was going to register on March 19 2009 but when this page was protected (rightfully) by editors to stop the ongoing vandalism, I waited for a week and have then found other interesting articles to edit. However, I believe this page has gone onto disrepair and I have saved terrorist incidents from March 20 to March 28 and will be willing to post those terrorist incidents.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuesday2009 (talk • contribs) 15:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
West Bank attack and Kandahar attack
Both attacks should be connected to the conflicts that are occuring in both regions. Afghanistan war, and Israeli Palestinian conflict. But should they be classified as terrorist incidents? I do not think so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuesday2009 (talk • contribs) 14:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
User Tuesday, you continue to delete and add Bat Ayin's location from West Bank to Israel. It's extremely frustrating, and I've made it more than clear to you that Bat Ayin is located in the West Bank. The reason being, of course, is that Bat Ayin is situated in Bethlehem, a city governed by the Palestinians. Here, for your pleasure:
Bat Ayin is being governed by the Israeli government. Prove to me that Palestinian police officers are in Bat Ayin, they collect taxes from Bat Ayin and elected representatives come from Bat Ayin to the Palestinian Authority. The final say in the West Bank is Israel, Israel occupies West Bank and one of its settlements are Bat Ayin.
Ugh. This is good, you finally offer a clear rationale instead of viciously removing cited material with little reason while users like me get blocked for your habitual vandalism. First, sign your posts. Second, according to "international law", Israel occupies the West Bank militarily. But, the West Bank is technically governed by Fatah. Though much of it is "occupied" by Israel (i.e, outposts, bases, barriers, etc..), it is not part of Israel. It is not annexed and is not a claimed territory. For all intents and purposes, the West Bank is Palestinian. Here, a nice map detailing Israel/PNA control: Bethlehem firmly under Fatah control. Can you find Bethlehem on the map? Bat Ayin is an illegal settlement, technically. The settlement is not part of Israel. I really don't want to go to dispute resolution. That shit takes forever. Wikifan12345 (talk) 18:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I believe you that Bat Ayin is an illegal settlement. Therefore I agree that Bethlehem (as closest legal settlement) is under Palestinian control. Therefore I will accept the attack as an attack on Palestinian territory.(Tuesday2009 (talk) 03:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC))
Basilan hostage kidnapping
This is connected to the Islamic Insurgency of Philippines but I do not see where it is a terrorist incident? No other kidnapping of large groups of people have been posted in the last few years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuesday2009 (talk • contribs) 14:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Islamic Insurgency, Islamic terrorism. Same deal. A history of incidents is not necessary to consider an event a terrorist attack. Bad guys with guns inspired by dogma kidnap good guys without guns and kill a hostage. Terrorism. The kidnapping part isn't what qualifies the event as terrorism.
It is suspected to be MILF terrorists. However, after the last step of the 2008 peace deal reached some turbulance late last year as stated " The peace talks between the government and the 12,000-strong MILF, which is brokered by Malaysia, collapsed last year after the two sides failed to sign an agreement on ancestral domain, prompting the MILF sub-commanders and their men to launch deadly attacks on mostly Christian communities in Mindanao.
Ancestral domain refers to the MILF's demand for territory that will constitute a Muslim homeland. It is the last remaining hurdle for a final political settlement that is expected to end the four decades of Muslim insurgency that has claimed hundreds of thousands of lives" [2] it may possibly an attempt for ransom that resulted in one death, and not some terrorist, religious or ethnic situation. (Tuesday2009 (talk) 19:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC))
That is your POV. First paragraph is irrelevant, and "it may possibly" is an indication of your lack of understanding. A group of armed muslims raided a Christian village, kidnapped many and killed one. That's terrorism. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Not necessarily. If they were doing it for religion, or for their organization, most definately. However, if they were doing it for money, like a ransom, it is then like the pirate attacks on the Gulf of Aden where they target ships that are "Christian" but want money. (Tuesday2009 (talk) 04:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC))
I'm sorry Tuesday, but this is conjecture. It is clear neither of us our experts on the circumstances involved but your denial that this is not a terrorist attack is rather confusing. If you believe MILF's actions did not constitute terrorism can you please explain why? Also, some organizations consider Somalia pirates capture of civilian vessels as terrorism. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Azerbaijan University attack
That attack was similar to university attacks in the States and in Europe and because those are not considered terrorist incidents, this one shouldn't be as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patty wack (talk • contribs) 12:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Restoring this incident, expunged sans explanation by User:Patty wack. It was a verified terror attempt. and this list includes verified attempts in addition to "successful" efforts.Historicist (talk) 17:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Why isn't the murder of George Tiller on here? Is it not terrorism? What classifies as terrorism? The muslim that killed two soldiers only days within the Tiller murder is added and so is the old white supremacist that shot up the Holocaust museum. Is it not terrorism but murder? How are the other two incidents I mentioned different from this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.126.43.240 (talk) 21:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Interesting point. In this article terrorism is being defined by acts of violence motivated by political/ideological purposes that have been established through precedent. Pro-life/Pro-choice activists are not at war and do not conduct terrorist campaigns against one another. Over the last 40 years, less than 10 people have been killed in various bombings/assassinations. United States Holocaust Memorial Museum shooting is considered a terrorist act because of the long-standing history of nazi/antisemitic warfare/plots that has existed in the US and elsewhere for centuries. The fact that the shooter infiltrated a federal building and went on a shooting spree certified the action as terrorism by government and media, even though it might be inaccurate assessment. See WP:V. Wikifan12345 (talk) 11:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Wikifan nice to see you again. To avoid accusations of ownership you might want to avoid telling other editors what this article is about and what it isn't about. There are good reasons for including the George Tiller murder, and a long history of coordinated campaigns of intimidation and violence directed toward abortionists in the United States. RomaC (talk) 03:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
First, I rarely edit this article so claims of ownership is rather moot (not to mention uncivil). Second, this article is about terrorist attacks. The editor was awfully confused about what can and cannot be put in the article so I felt it was necessary to expand on the core of what constitutes terrorism. Third, no there are no good reasons to include the murder of Tiller. Just as there are no good reasons to include Robert F. Kennedy assassination or the murder of Bob Crane. The same logic must be applied to George Tiller, with the subject matter being 100% irrelevant. Also, there is not a long history of coordinated campaigns of violence directed at abortionists - there have been maybe 7 deaths since Roe V. Wade. Intimidation does not = terrorism. Christian groups have been sent death threats for promoting traditionalist beliefs...does that mean they are victim to a perpetual state of terror? No, it just means people are intolerant d-bags who can't respect the rule of law. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm awfully confused. True, the firebombing of abortion clinics and shooting of doctors does not always cause deaths. So what is your death-count threshold for terrorism? And JFK, what's up with that randomness? RomaC (talk) 03:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
You are missing the point. Acts of murder does not equate to terrorism. When RFK was assassinated by a Palestinian it was not considered terrorism. When Bob Crane was murdered it was not considered terrorism. When an abortionist is assassinated by a lunatic it is not terrorism. Fire bombing abortionist clinics may be considered non-state terrorism from a certain perspective, but unless reliable refer to the act as terrorism then little can be done. Are serial killers terrorists? No, they are serial killers. There has to be some sort of precedent or background to confirm a terrorist campaign. I'm not the one who decides the threshold for inclusion, Wikipedia:Verifiability does that. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks WF I know that page, still looks authoritative you putting it into a link and all. By the way I won a wager with myself that you would bring up Sirhan Sirhan's Palestinian background, yup. In a discussion about anti-abortionists! Anyway, I'll do what the Anon editor above should have: Here is the word "terror" applied to Tiller in Mother Jones. And a book called Anti-Abortion Terrorism which runs 416 pages. You suggest dismissing Roeder as a "lunatic." This Washington Post bio has him as a member of the Montana Freemen group with a prior conviction for explosives. Of course it could be argued that any cold-blooded killer, like say, Yigal Amir, is crazy, but you know, in our wacky day and age they are heroes to some. RomaC (talk) 04:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
The consensus is that Tiller's murder was not a terrorist attack but an act of murder. Both are not mutual. Yea I'd imagine Yigal Amir is a hero to some 350 million people in a certain part of the world. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Urumqi, Xinjiang terrorist attack
Please do not blank it until it is sorted out. As far as I can see, the Chinese government was right to call it as terrorism.
As for calling Chinese state media as propaganda, I can say the same for the western media. So unless you have something that proves the news as fake, you can pretty much shut up since that would constitute your original research. In fact, during last year's Tibet incident, western media has shown plenty of mis-inform mis-represent information (see anti-cnn.com for plenty of hard facts) to support their bias.
At the same time, it is also ridiculous (and insulting) to consider it as propaganda. Should 9/11 report by the U.S. government as propaganda? given its statements on WMD in Iraq are all lies? You can cite western media with DIRECT evidence (rather than quotes or unaccountable statements) to dispute it, but removing the item simply because you think it is "propaganda" is POV. Coconut99 99 (talk) 05:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
It is part of a more general topic area ( http://www.chinaview.cn/urumqiriot/index.htm ). In there, ( http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-07/13/content_11700955.htm ) mentioned "would it have been balanced and fair for them, had any Chinese media commented on the Sept. 11 terrorist attack against New York and Washington in 2001,saying "New York Revenge -- Muslim minorities fight U.S. hegemonism? Please keep in mind: those mobs, who wouldn't even let pass children, are terrorists by the standards of all nations governed by law."
The overwhelming majority of coverage describes it as riots, civil unrest or ethnic unrest. It would be undue weight to claim the riots were "terrorist incidents" based on what the overwhelming majority of secondary sources say. O Fenian (talk) 17:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Note terrorism doesn't conflict with "civil unrest" or "ethnic unrest". If we use standard like O Fenian is insisting, at least 50% of the entries on this page should be removed, and 911 should be described as: "The word trade center and two airplane were destroyed and thousand were killed in a ethnic unrest between Muslins and Americans "(Dumamdtalk)
If you have multiple, neutral, independent reliable sources saying the riots were terrorism provide them now, until then it is a fringe view. Your comparison is incorrect, offensive, and suggests your motives are not compatible with those of a neutral encyclopedia. O Fenian (talk) 22:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I know the comparison is not that correct, but it follows from your logic that "civil unrest or ethnic unrest means NOT terrorism". All the statement above are just your own personal point of view. And now tell me which sources are neutral, independent, and reliable ? and which of the entries on this page cited multiple sources ? ( Dumamd talk)
I am not talking about any other incidents on this page, I am talking about this incident which you are trying to add against policy. Please stop adding it unless there is consensus for it to be added. O Fenian (talk) 00:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
If you would like to discuss the removal of any other items, please start a new section and we will discuss them there. They are not relevant to whether this incident being a terrorist attack is a fringe view or not. O Fenian (talk) 01:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
We have discussed this topic at length on the Urumqi Riots page and the consensus is that there is not a reliable neutral source confirming any connection between the riots and terrorist activity. A riot, terrifying though it may be, is not the same as a terrorist attack. Please consult the talk page of this event for additional details as it has been discussed there at some length.Simonm223 (talk) 14:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
The incident will not be included here, and that's the final word on that right now. No matter how many arguments you invent, there is currently no definitive proof that this incident meets the definition of terrorism, and there is overwhelming consensus at Talk:July 2009 Ürümqi riots not to label it as such (by "overwhelming consensus" I mean that every editor in good standing who has commented there agrees with this). This consensus will not change unless there are major changes in the outside world. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs17:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Israel/Palestine
Attacks, and attempted attacks, on Israeli soldiers by Palestinian militants are part of the conflict and not terrorism as civilians are not targeted or effected. Additionaly, why is there no inclusion of attacks on Palestinian civilians by settlers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.82.195.134 (talk) 16:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Anon editor, I think your first point is going to be hard to sell either here or at the 2008 terrorist incidents article. As for attacks by Israeli settlers on Palestinians, are this and this and this the sort of things you mean? Again, as an editor with a pro-wikipedia bias who has visited Israeli-Palestinian articles a fair bit over the last years I'd say you're likely to encounter coordinated opposition. But perhaps if sourced well and argued strongly, information on politically-motivated violence by Israeli settlers could make it as far as edit-war status. Let's see shall we? RomaC (talk) 03:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Suicide bombings against Israeli civilians and attacks against patrolling Israeli soldiers are considered terrorist attacks by the media and most people. However, Israeli soldiers killed in acts of war is not considered terrorism. There is not a documented history of Jewish settlers invading Arab cities and ambushing civilian towns. However, there have been many confrontations between settlers and Palestinians but deaths as a result tend to not be considered a part of a terrorist campaign. Does that make sense? Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Sourcing
Because the word "terrorist" is such a loaded term with highly negative connotations that is often used for propaganda purposes (see WP:TERRORIST), it's essential that items in this list be adequately sourced, with the source directly categorizing the incident as a terrorist act.
Hi, you removed thoroughly cited information that explicitly referred to the attacks as acts of terrorism, or as part of an on-going campaign of terrorism. This is especially true in your mass removal of practically all the events in the Palestinian territories. Please consult talk before doing such major revisions with inaccurate summaries. All the incidents are accompanied with reliable sources, so your claim of OR is rather dubious. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Far from the information being "thoroughly cited" the entries that I deleted had at most 1 cite and two had zero working cites.
On that matter, why are you reverting these edits [2][3]? The links are broken.
Do you understand Wikipedia's original research policy? Do you understand why classifying incidents as terrorism _yourself_ is original research? Do you understand why we must defer to reliable sources to make that classification?
Hello again. A) Many of the diffs you removed explicitly referred to the acts as terrorism (coincidentally, most of them revolved around Israel). Deleting an incident because the source is broken is simply retarded, just find a new source or add a citation - removing it is not kosher and violates policy. Yahoo often kills their news archives after a couple of months to save money and space, so you could have easily just googled the event and switched out the references. This has nothing to do with original research, all the information comes straight from the references. Thanks. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
You just wiped out all the references again under "original research" claim. I am asking you to self-revert or I'll seek a moderator because your edits (reverting 5+ events) constitutes major vandalism and goes beyond content discussion. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Did you read my comment? The incidents I removed are not described as terrorism by their sources. Thus listing them here constitutes original research.
If you want to restore the items I removed, simply find reliable sources that describe the incidents as terrorism.
Reliable sources consider them "geniune" actions of terrorism. Whether you believe blowing up Jews is somehow consistent with legal conflict and not terrorism is your POV and does not reflect wikipedia policy. Please self-revert or I will get a 3rd-party. Wikifan12345 (talk) 10:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Why don't you read the reliable sources you removed? Jpost, Yahoo, etc...are all certified-reliable sources. Virtually every mainstream paper in Israel is considered a reliable source. The Jpost article about the donkey bombers explicitly referred to the Hamas militants as terrorists. Your claim of OR is dubious and your claim that these sources aren't reliable is ultraly dubious. Wikifan12345 (talk) 11:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I've read the references. The Yahoo Canada reference is no longer there is appears, I'm getting a "Page not found". Would you consider JPost a neutral reporting outlet on news concerning Israel - it probably fails WP:NPOV, but in any case, the other two references make no use of the word "Terrorist". As per FOTG, please stop adding these incidents until you can provide a reliable source that specifically labels the particular act as a terrorism act. --HighKing (talk) 16:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
<outdent> Clearly you haven't.
A) Jpost is a wikipedia-certified reliable source. It does not fail NPOV or any policy. Also, not all references FOTG removed were cited by Jpost.
B) Yes, I explained why you are getting page not found. Yahoo references tend to die out after a couple of months. FOTG deleted the incidents claiming "dead" source. You do not delete a reference if a source is dead, you simply find a new one.
C) FOTG summarized his edits with false allegations of "original research." This is a serious waste of time because any one could do this. The following is some of FOTG dubious revisions:
Al-Qaida is a terrorist organization. The author explicitly refers to the gunman as "terrorists." The source does describe the attack as terrorism.
So you claiming you "read" the source is total bollocks.
This could have been discussed but instead you decided to war out cited information. It is offensive that you targeted strictly Jewish-related incidents.
The source explicitly refers to the acts as terrorism.
I'll give you half an hour to self-revert before I go to ANI because you clearly have a POV that conflicts with wikipedia policy. Deleting Israel/Jewish-related incidents when references clearly refer to the incidents as terrorism is not simply suspect but incredibly offensive. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Here's a brief "second opinion" to consider. I went through all the sources as well:
Hey Seb. Can you please copy and paste the diffs? And those aren't all the sources. I just demonstrated 3 of FOTG summaries were totally and completely 100% fabricated. And his obsession with Israel is very very offensive. Here is January 28 - Source does not categorize incident as a terrorist attack.
(This is why I said it was a "second opinion." I'm not really wild for arguing here. Since the links are included, anyone who really cares to go through this list can go to the links and make his/her own judgment. It's not a prose article. And yes, I only skimmed the articles for the word "terrorism." Above list was meant to be in your support, concerning March 5-incident. Don't assume I'm against you.)Seb az86556 (talk) 01:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
The March bulldozer incident was removed because the article (in the Guardian) did not claim that the attack was terrorism. Rather, it quoted the Israeli police saying that they believed the incident was terrorism. I doubt whether the Israeli police are an entirely reliable source when it comes to defining acts of terrorism.
If the Israeli government refers to the act as terrorism it is. You should restore all the incidents, because they were all referenced and demonstrated acts of terrorism. You've barely edited this article before and to target all the Israel incidents (which, outside of Iraq and Afghanistan, is the poster child for terrorism) proves a severe lack of NPOV. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Also, you should give a rationale for each item you remove, rather clicking out a large amount of data and leaving it for other people to sort out. It verges on page-blanking. It's tedious. Seb az86556 (talk) 01:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Wikifan wrote "If the Israeli government refers to the act as terrorism it is." Do you really want to argue this? RomaC (talk) 01:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that's the initial point, at least it isn't mine. I got drawn to this when I saw someone remove a large amount from the page w/o using the talkpage. Could be any page. I suggest you start a new string for each and any contested item. Blanking whole sections is not the way to go, I don't care where or for which article. Seb az86556 (talk) 02:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
How is this an argument? The rubric for terrorist incidents is not that strict. The article on the bulldoze event contains many references that characterize the incident as an act of terrorism. If the Israeli government believes the incident was an act of terrorism there is no reason we should not include it. Arab's probably don't consider it terrorism, but that is irrelevant. Same deal in Iraq, American gov. considers attacks by insurgents and hostile militants against civilians and soldiers are terrorist incidents. They are always listed here, and the source tends to be exclusively USA. FOTG exclusively edited-out everything Israel and Jewish with summaries that have been proven wrong. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree Serb. So FOTG vicious editing should be restored and then he can thoroughly explain why each incident does not constitute terrorism instead of relying on standard one-sentence B.S explanations. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I didn't blank out an entire section, I removed a number of items from a list, and when I did so I gave the reason I was removing them in the edit summary. I also used talk when I did so, explaining my rationale.
On Wikipedia, the onus is on those who add material to an article to provide sources that support its inclusion. not on those removing material to make sure that there isn't a source somewhere that could possibly support it. A great deal of material has been added to this article without finding adequate sources that define the given act as terrorism. The correct course of action is to remove unsupported material and then add it back when (and if) sources are found. Factsontheground (talk) 02:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Contrary to what has just been said.. there is no agreement on this page that if a source does not say an incident was terrorism, an editor (or editors) can decide that an incident was terrorism and include it. That is original research (which is policy), and no alleged agreement between editors can overrule that policy. O Fenian (talk) 02:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I can't help thinking that if all of these coatrack pages were renamed to something more sensible like political violence this kind of situation wouldn't arise. An RS calls something terrorism, so what ? It's just a word. It doesn't contain useful information. Requiring that RS's call things 'terrorism' sets the bar too high or makes it too fuzzy especially given that there isn't an agreed definition. For example, this kind of routine incident in the South listed in the article isn't usually treated or referred to as terrorism in Thailand. That doesn't change the nature of the event and it's consequences.
"Narathiwat At least eleven were killed and twelve wounded when gunmen opened fire on worshippers at a mosque in Thailand's Muslim-majority south. The attack comes amid a sudden spike in a five-year insurgency that has left 3,700 people dead.[174]" Sean.hoyland - talk02:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Those aren't even comparable. Militants blowing up patrolling soldiers is terrorism. Militants targeting check points and loading donkeys with C4 is terrorism. This is all totally irrelevant is avoiding the true fact that FOTG viciously and obsessively edited out ALL incidents on Israel and Jews with the same basic summary, 5 of which have proven to be false. The fact that he totally wiped out incidents because a source was dead instead of simply finding a new one proves this has little to do with terrorism and everything to do with his vendetta against Jews and Israel. We've had similar experiences in other articles. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I could not care less what you think is terrorism, if reliable sources do not say it then it shouldn't be in this article. And as I've hinted at elsewhere, the real problem is your pro-Israel agenda and wishing to include as many attacks on Jews as possible despite the source not saying terrorism. O Fenian (talk) 02:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
If you read what I wrote you will see reliable sources did confirm the incidents to be terrorism. FOTG and you simply deny the obvious and accuse me of harboring an agenda that conflicts with policy. I've been very explicit in my posts and you haven't even checked out the sources. None of this is original research, all this incidents occurred. The debate is over whether this constitutes terrorism - a valid debate, but no way in hell is it okay for an editor to wipe out that information. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I've read what you've written, it's largely nonsense. For example you imply this source says "Many government officials consider this hate-filled crimes as "domestic extremism" which is categorized as terrorism". It does not say that at all. And I note how you claim Chinese media isn't reliable or neutral, while accepting Israeli media. Don't any neutral sources support the Jewish party line? O Fenian (talk) 02:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
LOL. I said the Holocaust shooting is iffy and is subject to interpretation. The other reliable references, the references you declare to be "nonsense," explicitly refer to the incidents as acts of terrorism. FOTG just removed everything with Israel in the heading and copied/pasted "original research." Thanks. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
The door is already wide open. A US or Israeli RS calling a rocket attack from Southern Lebanon terrorism is just an opinion based on local decision procedures. If the article was called 'List of incidents described by at least one source regarded by Wikipedia as an RS as terrorist incidents, 2009' then fine, it's clear. Sean.hoyland - talk02:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. virtually all the sources refer to the incidents as terrorism. The only two that could be debated is the Bulldozer and the holocaust shooting. Editor simply went through everything that was Jewish related and deleted, and then edit-warred those who tried to correct his vandalism. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
If you see the discussion about the latest riots in China in the section above here, you'll see I insist on multiple, neutral sources. I think that's the only way to go? O Fenian (talk) 02:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Haha okay. So just so everyone knows, O Fenian stated none of the sources referred to the incidents as terrorism. I just posted a link above that demonstrated this is not the case. But apparently, I am still wrong...so I must "deal with it." Solid argument. Also, Jerusalem Post is a certified reliable source according to wikipedia. Whether you like it or not is totally irrelevant. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Restoring section
I'm restoring the article to a version without all the removals. FOTG can enumerate the incidents he believes does not constitute terrorism and provide explicit reasoning. IT is against policy to remove paragraphs of cited information and sue the other party for justification. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
He reverted my restoration to a consensus-state with "original research." This is purely procedural. FOTG original edits, whether in good faith or not, were not endorsed by policy. He needs to go to talk, explain his edits, and then work from there. This is just totally backwards.Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed.
There is extensive "case law" that a reasonable, well articulated question about a particular fact or claim is a valid challenge. However, just saying "I disagree" does not make a reasonable or well articulated question. Persistently challenging without a well founded basis for it, or particularly if one challenges with a hidden agenda to modify or delete material that is generally NPOV and accurate, is disruptive editing. Editors have to be willing to explain their reasoning on challenging things under WP:V.
To those arguing to remove incidents:
Please articulate why you believe that these incidents are not acts of terrorism.
Please articulate what general categories you feel that they fall into, if not terrorism.
Please articulate a theory on which we can, without extensive reference to third party opinions, categorize incidents into "Terrorism" or another category.
And to all parties - please stop edit warring over the content until this discussion has some chance to happen here.
I have explained why I believe that the incidents that I have removed are not acts of terrorism - because the reliable sources used to cite the incidents do not describe them as such.
Why should an incident fall into another category if it isn't categorized as terrorism? This seems like an odd assumption to make.
Wikipedia doesn't need a theory to categorize incidents as "terrorism". Terrorist incidents that are notable should have plenty of sources describing them as such. If there aren't then they don't meet notability and shouldn't be listed here anyway.
This is about original research. For a Wikipedia editor to decide that a given incident is terrorism, without the support of a reliable source that makes that claim, is original research.
I don't understand why this is being contested. WP:OR is a core content policy.
I would like you to explain what those incidents are, if not terrorism.
You are hanging on a legalistic "If the media coverage doesn't explicitly say terrorism then it isn't". I don't believe that's necessarily a valid way to describe the situation.
WP:OR is a core policy - but if there's a standard working definition of terrorism, and an incident meets those criteria, it's not OR to say it is a terrorist incident.
OR is not a bar to common sense labeling and synthesis of facts and opinions found elsewhere. It does not require that we exactly paraphrase the specific terminology used elsewhere. It says that we cannot publish new information here (first). The various WP:SOAP etc policies expand that to not using Wikipedia for editorializing, and OR is somewhat applicable as well.
However - you seem to be asserting that it's editorializing or rendering an opinion to categorize something as terrorism.
From Terrorism here: Terrorism is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.[1] At present, there is no internationally agreed definition of terrorism.[2][3] Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants.
If those "common definitions" are good enough for that article (and they're supported by numerous outside reliable sources) then we can make use of that for categorization purposes here as well, unless there's a good reason not to.
A good reason not to would include an alternate definition to standardize and use on this article, and/or an alternate framework for describing those incidents which can be readily articulated and is logically defensible and not in itself WP:OR.
I have no idea if you're antisemitic or not. I am concerned that you're misinterpreting OR and not justifying your categorization dispute here. Your motives in this - be they an honest policy dispute, antisemitism, or what, are not obvious or necessarily at issue. Whatever motivated this, if you can explain how you intend to alternately categorize incidents and why they don't fall under terrorism, that's fine. The talk page here can hash out a model or categorization system and then apply it.
However, you have to be willing to help define what you think along those lines and work with others to establish a consensus model and definition. Just saying "they don't match" isn't good enough - once the not matching is challenged, you have to defend your position just as much as Wikifan12345 has to defend their position that they are.
On first impression, at least several of the incidents you've removed (again) match the definition at Terrorism. That leads me to believe that there's valid reason to counterchallenge your assertion and insist that you and the other participants propose a clear and consistent alternate model. I do not prejudge the outcome of that - if you have a position that can be articulated and makes sense, and a consensus forms around that being the working definition here, then that's fine. My personal initial judgement leads me to concern - it does not lead to a final conclusion on the factual dispute.
So - please form and articulate a policy and definition for future use here.
Also - as a reminder, I have warned everyone about edit warring on the page. You just bulk reverted the whole contents. If edit warring continues then I will issue individual warnings to reverters and if it continues past that I'll block edit warriors or lock the article until there's a consensus here, or both. Banging back and forth like this on article content is a serious disregard for Wikipedia process, consensus, and the community values. Everybody needs to stop that. Facts, don't do that again. Wikifan, please don't bulk revert it back again. Individual edits on this point from now on need specific individual justification and discussion on talk page, until this is over. If anyone bulk reverts again during the discussion I'll issue an individual warning as I just described. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I have repeatedly stated my preferred policy for entries in this article: they must be supported by at least 1 reliable source that describes the incident as terrorism. This policy has the benefit of being compatible with Wikipedia's original research policy as it does not require editors to engage in original research as to whether or not incidents are terrorism.
If no reliable sources can be found that describe the incident as terrorism, then the incidents are either not terrorism or not notable enough to be listed here. You say "I would like you to explain what those incidents are, if not terrorism." What can I say? They are not terrorism. They are acts of violence committed by non-state actors, but not terrorism. What more do you want? The vast majority of violence committed by non-state actors isn't classified as terrorism, only a very few acts are.
Listing an incident on this page is equivalent to the statement "Incident X is terrorism". A statement such as that on Wikipedia must be supported by a reliable source. If not, it should be removed.
You suggest that a definition of terrorism should be created. That would require a great deal of effort just for this page, and most likely would be abused by various partisans attempting to hijack this page for their own purposes. The term has so many different, conflicting definitions it would be against Wikipedia's neutral point-of-view policy to define a single definition as "correct". Any preference toward a particular organization's definition would be non-neutral and biased.
As WP:TERRORIST states: The terms "extremist", "terrorist" and "freedom fighter" are often particularly contentious labels that carry an implicit viewpoint. "Extremist" and "terrorist" are pejorative labels, frequently applied to those whose cause is being opposed. Similarly, the term "freedom fighter" is typically applied to those whose cause is being supported. These words are inherently non-neutral, so they should not be used as unqualified labels in the voice of the article.
As Terrorism states: The word "terrorism" is politically and emotionally charged,[5] and this greatly compounds the difficulty of providing a precise definition. A 1988 study by the United States Army found that over 100 definitions of the word “terrorism” have been used.[6] The concept of terrorism is itself controversial because it is often used by states to delegitimize political or foreign opponents, and potentially legitimize the state's own use of terror against them. A less politically and emotionally charged term (used not only for terrorists), allowing for more accurate analyses, is violent non-state actor.
The word "terrorist" is so notoriously abused and ill-defined that some news agencies, such as Reuters, avoid it completely.
The reason I reverted was because Wikifan12345 had, inadvertently or not, duplicated the entire contents of the article, which is an unacceptable state to leave it in. You are obviously supporting Wikifan12345's position; perhaps a neutral admin would be preferable to manage the editing of this article. The reason I asked you whether you supported Wikifan12345's claims is because he has made several vicious personal attacks against me, yet has received no warnings. Factsontheground (talk) 05:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I'd actually go further than Factsontheground and give up on 'terrorist' entirely. My view is that we shouldn't even attempt to agree a working definition of terrorism, common sense doesn't apply and it's simply not possible to be neutral when describing something as a terrorist incident. For something to be a terrorist incident it needs to be a member of the set of things that are terrorist incidents. Does an RS (or us) calling it terrorist make it a member of that set ? Let's say the answer is yes. What about the sources that report it but don't call it terrorist ? Do they make it a member of the set of things that are not terrorist incidents ? It can't be in both sets. It can't both be in this article and not in this article. Relying on RS or our rules to place an incident in the terrorist set is simply a way to formalise a confirmation bias. It's a bit like having a list of gods that are great. It's easy to find an RS to support inclusion of a particular god in the list once you've decided that the adjective 'great' can be treated the same way as the adjective 'green'. But surely it's obvious when something is a terrorist incident ? Apparently not. Hamas fires a rockets. Jpost says terrorist paraphrasing the IDF. Another RS interviews Hamas who say 'Our modest, home-made rockets are our cry of protest to the world'....that's a real quote from an RS. So which is it, terrorist or crying puppy ? It's both or neither. We don't have lists of 'fat' people or 'talented' singers. We do have lists of people and lists of people that are singers. These 'acts of violence committed by non-state actors' incidents are notable and the information probably is something that belongs in an encyclopedia whether or not someone describes them as terrorist. I think Wiki should just go the way of Reuters and others. Sean.hoyland - talk07:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Okay I really don't think I have the attention span to spend read through all of this but hopefully my feelings have been recognized. I am more than happy to discuss what constitutes terrorism and apply an accepted standard to all incidents. But my dispute was with FOTG's wild deletion of every Jew/Israel incident under false summaries, and then refusing to concede after I copied and pasted the references that explicitly refer to the incidents as acts of terrorism. It was a gross abuse of editing privileges and to target all things Jewish is doubly offensive. All I ask is that if editors want to delete paragraphs of cited information, go to talk first. And also, Jerusalem Post is a reliable source. As far as Israel is concerned it is used a lot because most international media do not keep up with the on-going conflict outside of the Palestinian camps. Haaretz typical confirms Jpost articles (about attacks) but they're more spread out (media wise) and I'm not always on that site. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Wikifan12345, please keep up with the discussion on this talk page. As I stated above you duplicated the entire contents of the article with your final edit [4]). I would have left it alone had you edited it correctly. Thank you. Factsontheground (talk) 08:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I didn't duplicate anything. I simply rolled back the entire article to a previous version. I'm not going to paste and copy individual incidents, that's a total waste of time. Please self-revert or this discussion simply isn't fair from a neutral POV. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Uh? The consensus is your content summaries were not sufficient and violated editing policy. Regardless, I reverted to the last non-dispute state. This is consistent with similar disputes and is pretty ordinary and standard. Why you continue to revert again and again is beyond me. Eventually you'll just get blocked. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I would like to remind everyone that edit warring after an explicit warning from an administrator who is reviewing the situation is not acceptable nor wise behavior.
Wikifan - I told you not to just revert and you did, don't do that again.
Factsontheground - I told you not to do that again and you did.
When was this? I've only reverted twice in the last 2 days, and I thought it was per consensus. Serb suggested this and I thought we are obligated to return the article to a neutral state before beginning preliminary dispute resolution. Please don't put me in the same boat as FOTG who wiped out paragraphs cited information. I've relied on discussion extensively. As an admin, would you feel comfortable returning the article to the pre-dispute state? Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
You may find The Wrong Version useful reading. The warning is behavioral not a content judgement. Reverts by both sides are an evasion of useful consensus building discussion on the talk page, by attempting to work around the discussion even if you're participating in it. Just stop, until there's some progress in the consensus here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
From the top
Wikipedia:Words to avoid, which is what WP:TERRORIST redirects to, is a style guideline, not a content policy. From its introductory summary - This page documents an English Wikipedia style guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense and the occasional exception
I am not taking exception to the idea or discussion that the term "terrorist" is a sensitive word. That discussion is widespread in society and a valid discussion, including individual and national perspective shifts and so forth.
The issue is the content of this article.
If the argument is that there should be no article titled "List of terrorist incidents in (2009 or another year)", then the proper way to approach that is to file an Article for Deletion request. Doing so by wikilawyering content on this page a nibble at a time is not proper and disruptive.
Interpreting WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:TERRORIST in an overly legalistic manner to try and exclude some entries here, on a case by case basis that they were not explicitly called terrorist acts, is highly suspicious. This article is not "List of incidents which were explicitly described in the press as being terrorist incidents".
In interpreting it that way, you are presuming that you have won the debate in the greater society as to whether the term terrorist is appropriate or not at all. It has not been decided - you are asserting a position by making that argument that is not neutral, and is taking sides. There is both significant agreement in the world (and on Wikipedia) that the general definitions in Terrorist are good and usable definitions and significant concern (often among other parties than the first set of people) that the term is by nature point of view selective.
If you think that you can get support for deleting the article, run that up the flagpole at WP:AFD. If not - accept that WP:TERRORIST is a style guide and not a prescriptive content restriction. If blowing up a bus in London was an act of terror, then blowing up a bus in Jerusalem is an act of terror, and blowing up a bus in Mumbai is an act of terror, even if press coverage of the latter two doesn't call it that. If a newspaper describes a protester chaining themselves to a tree to prevent logging as an act of terrorism against the logging company, that probably isn't something we should include on the list even though we do have a RS saying so.
The words "common sense" in the summary to the style guide are mandatory. We are not forced to slavishly follow every RS's claims, nor include facts only exactly as described using the same words found in the RS.
Again - I am strongly urging you to come up with a functional definition that will be consensus supportable here. Getting the page deleted is an alternate solution, which you are welcome to file for if you think that's necessary. But this approach being taken at the moment is not good. If that means including acts that fit a consensus definition here, but not describing them as terrorism in their individual entry unless they are so described in external RSes, that's fine, as one example.
I don't want to destroy or ruin this article. I am editing in good faith to improve this article by making it more neutral.
You claim that "There is both significant agreement in the world (and on Wikipedia) that the general definitions in Terrorist are good and usable definitions". I disagree. As I said before this word is notoriously loaded and even news agencies avoid this term.
You keep asking for a consensus definition, but terrorism is such a contested word that I doubt we could find an objective definition that is accepted by most people on Wikipedia.
But essentially this whole debate comes down to two sentences in [[WP:V}]:The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.[nb 1] The source cited must unambiguously support the information as it is presented in the article.[nb 2]
The burden is not upon me removing something, but upon people who add and insert material to explain why they consider the incident to be terrorism. What I am asking for is perfectly legitimate and supported by the core principles of Wikipedia. Factsontheground (talk) 10:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Hey George, I think you might be out of touch with the terrorist articles on wikipedia. We have List of non-state terrorist incidents, 2008, List of terrorist incidents, 2007, List of terrorist incidents, 2006...all the way to List of terrorist incidents, 1970. Suggesting an AFD is rather bizarre. Since you have obviously forgotten, this began because a troll decided it was okay to remove reliably-cited information that he claimed was: A) Not supported by reliable sources (WRONG), B) Sources did not refer to the acts of terrorism (WRONG), and C) Incidents are therefore original research (WRONG). Coincidentally, all of his reverts revolved around Israel and Jews. I went a long with the charade George, please revert the article back to its neutral and non-vandalized state and then we can discuss how incidents should be categorized as terrorism or resisting occupation. A rule of thumb is if the reliable reference refers to the incident as terrorism or of terrorist-nature, it qualifies. OR if the incident is part of a world-recognized campaign of terror, as is the case with Hamas by virtue of it being recognized terrorist organization by the EU, USA, and most medically-sane human beings. The fact the FOTG edits were blatant vandalism and now he gets to dictate the rubric of terrorism is truly disturbing. The playing field should be leveled - roll back the article and we can talk. Wikifan12345 (talk) 11:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
RfC: Explicit source?
In the "List of terrorist incidents, 2009" article, does terrorism need to be explicitly stated in a cited source or can an inference drawn from circumstances also warrant inclusion? Factsontheground (talk) 10:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
This is a stupid question. All the edits you removed were referenced by wikipedia-certfied reliable sources. Stop beating the dead horse. Wikifan12345 (talk) 11:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
The question is not "stupid" it's cleverly tweaked to serve FOTG's purpose.
The original question at hand was not whether an editor "feels" an incident is terrorism. The question was whether the word "terrorism" must be explicitly stated in a cited source or whether an inference from circumstances can warrant inclusion. Seb az86556 (talk) 11:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Or whether killing Jews in the Jewistan is justified under the ambiguous claim of "resisting occupation," and therefore not terrorism. Wikifan12345 (talk) 11:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
See, here we have a problem with this article (which was developed, incidentally, by a since-indefinitely-banned user), which is that it can and very probably will be co-opted into a selective vilification platform. If "inference" is all that is required, then look out for advocates to press and plead. Also, if the threshold for inclusion is set as the use of the word "terrorism" in a reliable source, then Wiki policy on non-English sources ensures that a translation of word "terrorism" will not be terribly difficult to find. Someone with an axe to grind and time to spend will be able to come along and label their adversaries "terrorists" via this article. "Terrorist" is, as we know, a terribly loaded word. I would prefer an article or articles based on more objective classification(s), "List of non-state bombings causing death", for example... RomaC (talk) 13:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
This is silly. There is a fundamental understanding of what constitutes non-state terrorism. "Inference" is not all that is required. A general understanding that the incident was an act of terror, and/or the incident is part of an on-going campaign of terror. Or a reliable source explicitly refers to the incident as terrorism. Everything else you wrote is purely semantics, when there are disputes that is what the talk discussion is for. Wikifan12345 (talk) 13:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
It is not silly. "Inference" is a word used in logic and means something different from "guessing" or "feeling" (wikifan, listen up, you're undermining your own argument here).
"Inference" could be this: 1. "X" is labeled a terrorist organization by trusted sources. 2. "X" was mentioned in conjunction with incident "Y". > One can infer that "Y" is terrorism, even if the word is not explicitly stated. Seb az86556 (talk) 13:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I know inductive reasoning but Roma's vague allusion made no sense at all. How he defines "inference" is not consistent with the way terrorist incidents have been edited into the article. Most editors don't need a manual to identify general non-state terrorism. I.e, Hamas, Al-Qeuda, Hezbollah, insurgencies in Sri Lanka, Thailand, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, etc...etc... If an editor just so happens to disagree with an addition there is this awesome thing called Wikipedia:Talk page. It's really neat. Mindless reverting, however is reserved for the trolls. Wikifan12345 (talk) 14:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
<-I agree with RomaC. The only thing that matters is the information in the article. The title/categorisation/inclusion criteria debate is a red herring. For me if people insist on calling this article 'terrorist incidents' then they should pay a very high price for that e.g. multiple genuinely neutral RS not associated with a belligerent using the word terrorist. If the article were simply renamed to avoid the pretty arbitrary 'terrorist' label then people could focus on adding information about these events in the same way other kinds of events are handled in wiki. Sean.hoyland - talk04:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
What do you mean by not associating with a belligerent? We have dozens of "list of terrorist incidents" articles, there is no reason to move all of them to a needless amount "list of bombings, air strikes, whatever." Seriously, if an RS refers to the incident as a terrorist attack or it is part of a recognized campaign of terror there shouldn't be a problem. Individual disputes can be made whenever they are, but this complaint is unprecedented nor endorsed by policy. And is sourced from a troll, don't forget that. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Please stop referring to other people here as trolls, in this section and the one above. It violates WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, in addition to WP:AGF. You have an uninvolved admin's attention now - please don't act in a way that requires me to do something about your behavior. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
If you are an uninvolved admin, please revert the vandalism and restore the article to a non-dispute state. Removing paragraphs of cited information exclusively about Israel and Jews and then warring any attempts to rectify should certainly resonate with your consideration for NPOV and civility laws. What if I removed every terrorist incident involving Arabs and Muslims? Eh? I really don't see the purpose in continuing mediation until the playing field is leveled. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
What the hell does that mean? The discussion began because an obvious vandal decided to remove cited information and force a dispute. As an uninvolved impartial admin I'd imagine you would restore the article to a more neutral state, which is consistent without how these sorts of issues are resolved. You suggesting this article be submitted for AFD is suspect on your knowledgeable and experience with these kinds of issues. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Wikifan, to clarify. I want this article (and all of the similar articles) to contain information about violent attacks by non-state actors or whatever. That means I want you to be able to include information about attacks in Israel for example without having to look for magic words like 'terrorist'. What I don't want is for things to be labelled 'terrorist' simply via inclusion in this article because the title says 'terrorist'. Phrase's like 'a recognized campaign of terror' are part of the problem. That is just an opinion. All that matters is the event, not what a partisan RS like JPost for example calls it. I just think it's better for an encyclopedia to focus on the events rather than the labels. These kinds of disputes just wouldn't happen. Sean.hoyland - talk05:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
This is exactly the problem. You are belittling valid and reliable sources with weasel worlds while dubiously questioning what constitutes a terrorist attack. You don't like the Jerusalem Post? Too bad. The criteria for what is a terrorist incident should certainly be discussed but you are seeking to exclude obvious incidents with semantics and redundant arguments. Hamas, Al Qeuda, Hezbollah, etc...all recognized terrorist organizations by Western powers (maybe not Iran or Saudi Arabia). Sure, some might say this isn't terrorism, such as yourself, but it is. If a reliable source calls the incident a terror attack or can be categorized in lengthy history of attacks (i.e, campaign of terror), there shouldn't be a problem. Suicide bombings in Iraq are practically standard nowadays and barely make the back page, so TERRORIST ZOMG TERRORIST does not need to be plastered all over the article to justify inclusion. As I said, if you think an event isn't a terrorist incident - then that's what talk is for. this argument is to exclude obvious incidents and is naturally all about Israel and Jews, what a surprise. Maybe we should rename the article, "Lists of acts of "resisting occupation." Would that satisfy you? Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:34, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Your reply is quite amusing particularly "some might say this isn't terrorism, such as yourself, but it is". Saying something is terrorism isn't like saying something belongs to a genus. There aren't any globally standard taxonomic keys. I'm not trying to belittle anything. I'm not saying that it is or isn't terrorism. I'm saying that I don't care. I just think it's better to let the facts about events speak for themselves and they don't need words like 'terrorist' to do that. My objective is to maximise the amount of information about events like suicide bombings and minimise the pointless wiki-lawyering and disputes over words. Sean.hoyland - talk06:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Fine. FOTG's dispute was that none of the sources referred to the acts of terrorism, an overwhelming majority of them did. Now you say we should "look at the fact," whatever that means. Context is assumed, simply seeing the word "terrorist" when the incident is about a guy who threw a stone at a policy officer obviously does not qualify. But you are putting roadblocks that simply aren't necessary, and has little to do with the fact that the origins of this dispute must be rectified and corrected before consensus is made on what is a terrorist incident. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm trying to take roadblocks away so that it's easier for you to include information (the facts not the labels) about events that some sources describe as 'terrorist' and other sources (like Reuters as a matter of policy) don't. To me those sources cancel eachother out. You can't just pick the one you want so that you can label something 'terrorist'. However, if this article is to stay with it's current name and continue as it is with it's deeply flawed approach then yes, removing sourced material is wrong and labels should be attributed to the source. Sean.hoyland - talk07:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
The world "terrorist" itself does not necessarily imply the incident was an act of terrorism. Like I said, most news articles on suicide bombings/blown up embassies/etc...etc... often don't even use "terrorist." They might say militant, or gunman, or insurgent, etc...etc... Again, pure semantics. Everyone knows what you are saying but it is just stating the obvious. What FOTG has does defies logic and your dispute goes beyond the original issue. Maybe you should be editing Terrorist cause your issues have a lot more to do with that article than this one. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
It's an obvious and systemic problem in wiki affecting lots of articles including this one. It's the root cause of the dispute here because FOTG removed things on the basis that terrorism wasn't explicitly mentioned. Other editors would do the same. FOTG getting it wrong in some cases is just a detail. Shit happens in articles all the time. Sean.hoyland - talk08:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Sean, perhaps if you were actually following the dispute and read the sources FOTG manically removed - you will find almost all of the sources explicitly refer to the incidents as acts of terrorism, one even involved an Al-Queda cell. FOTG aim was to remove everything Israel and Jewish, he doesn't give less of a #$#$@ about the terrorist rubric. Don't be an apologist for such a hateful user. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
You're right about me not checking the sources and therefore not really being in a position to make statements about actions. I went by what FOTG said rather than by checking his actions. I'm more interested in preventing these kind of firefights and as someone who has been called both an 'anti-Semitic, Islamic fanaticist, terrorist supporter' and also a Muslim hater who is 'nazi-esque towards moslems' by peeved maniacal editors I think you'll see I'm pretty neutral. Sean.hoyland - talk12:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
<outdent> Thank you for recognizing this. It seems many users have yet to accept FOTG's false summaries which he continues to stand by. Would you endorse a temporary restoration of the article prior to FOTG's edits? Considering his reverts were undoubtedly politically motivated, had little to do with policy, and might qualify under vandalism rules, I feel this is crucial if further discussion is to continue. Otherwise, the dispute will always be sourced from FOTG's edits and thus encouraging actions that directly conflict with how wikipedia operates. It defies neutrality IMO. Wikifan12345 (talk) 12:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
ArbCom have previously found that taking a definition of a term and applying it to events is original research, and therefore anything on the list has to be called a terrorist incident by a source. Here is link to ArbCom finding. BigDunc21:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I believe that the situations are not analagous - we're discussing a series of events here, versus a singular event there, and synthesizing a description for a singular historical event as opposed to categorizing ongoing events are not the same thing. Note the last sentence of WP:SYNTH : Carefully summarizing or rephrasing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis—it is good editing. Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking material from different reliable sources on the topic and putting those claims on the page in your own words, with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim. We are not discussing synthesizing new meaning here, as far as I am aware, the controversy over overuse of the term "terrorism" notwithstanding. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
These events are not "ongoing". If they are they belong on Wikinewws, not here. The events listed here have occurred and are part of the historical record. They should be treated with the same respect and caution as any historical event. Wikipedia does not use different editorial standards for events based on how long ago they have occurred.
You may selectively quote part of WP:SYNTH but no "careful summarizing or rephrasing" would use the word "terrorism" unless it was first used in the source material. Could you give an example of source material that didn't use the term terrorism from which a "careful summarizing or rephrasing" would include "terrorism"?
I think you are being somewhat disingenuous here. You argued before that I needed to produce a semantic definition of terrorism for this page. But now you are saying that a definition of terrorism is unnecessary and that it is possible to decide if something is terrorism by simply summarizing or rephrasing material?
Also, George I've noticed that people are continuing to edit this article. You have threatened me with a block for removing events that are inadequately cited. Why are you allowing people to add new material that hasn't been discussed on talk? It appears that you want to maintain the status quo on this page. Since you are involved in this dispute -- in fact you are the only person arguing for your position -- why don't you bow out and let another administrator deal with this page? Factsontheground (talk) 06:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC).
Back. May I remind all of you that almost all of the sources FOTG removed explicitly referred to the attacks as perpetrated by terrorists/terrors/militants who belong to recognized terrorist organizations. One even referred to an Al-Qaeda cell. I would restore this incidents per Arbcom but I know FOTG would simply edit-war them out and demand a novel to prove why they should be in. What a joke. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
None of the incidents I removed cited sources that described the acts as terrorism. Just because a state may recognize an organization as terrorist does not make it necessarily true. FOr example. take the Chinese government's response to the Xinjiang riots.
Secondly, instead of spending your time violating WP:CIVIL with your constant personal attacks on me, just find sources that support your contention that the given acts were terrorism. It should only take a minute, probably far less time than you've devoted to complaining on this page. Factsontheground (talk) 03:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, you are manically obsessed with Israel and Jews. You exclusively removed almost every single reference about Jews without even going to talk, and then hijacked discussions when I provided explicit examples demonstrating the references referred to the incidents as terrorism. Hamas and Al-Qaeda blowing up Israeli soldiers during patrols is considered terrorism. A) Hamas is a recognized terrorist organization. B) Al-Qaeda is a recognized terrorist organization. C) These activities did not occur during a time of war, ie Gaza War. So please, the references speak for themselves. Also, please stop following me around to articles you are not involved it, it may constitute wikihounding. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
The only one who keeps bringing up "Jews" in this discussion is you. Given that you continually try to insert unnecessary references to Israel in unrelated articles such as BBC and Human Rights Watch, I take the accusation of being "manically obsessed" is ironic.
Either participate civilly in the discussion about which incidents should be included on this page and stop attacking my character or let the adults work it out by ourselves. Factsontheground (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC).
I keep bringing up Jews because you continiously edit-out everything Jewish related without going to talk. And this still has nothing to do with the fact that many of the references you removed explicitly referred to the attacks as terrorism (not just the Israeli government), something you still deny over and over and over again. The fact that you are following me around to HRW and BBC is disturbing and I ask that you stop. Do not cite civility when you routinely edit-war and hound other editors. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Your acccusations don't even make any sense, Wikifan12345. I've been doing nothing but discuss this page for the last WEEK. You're the one who is continuously reverting. Also, Israeli != Jewish. Again, you have a hide to accuse other people of having an agenda considering how diverse your edits are. Factsontheground (talk) 06:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
<outdent> Please post diff demonstrating edit-warring. The discussion came much later after you rallied everyone to review what constituted a terrorist incident. It still doesn't change the fact that you targeted every single Israel incident - every single one. Is that not suspicious? Such a massive removal of material (1500+ words) requires at least a sentence of reasoning in discussion beforehand, do you not agree? Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
"every single Israel incident - every single one" -- that is categorically false. If you are going to continue to repeat untruths, I don't see this discussion as being productive whatsoever. Factsontheground (talk) 06:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Notice how you totally ignored my questions of whether or not users should provide a reasonable explanation when removing entire RS-cited paragraphs wholesale. And no, it is not categorically false. You removed eight with a standard summary, and then restored one after 3 pages of discussion. Anyways, this is not how wikipedia works. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I think the question on this RfC may be a touch loaded. The salient point would be, is the violent act in question committed by a (reliably sourced) terrorist organization? If so, it becomes tiresome indeed to demand a source for each one. IronDuke14:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
As the fairly old saying goes, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Maybe the solution would be to explicitly attribute within the list the view that a particular incident is terrorist, rather than claiming to be able to define terrorism when nobody else can? Attribution is a common WP solution when things need to be mentioned but their interpretation is disputed - just attribute the interpretation(s). Or if that's too messy and complicated, have an extra column saying "Disputed by", or something like that. (Plus, we have the option of giving up on pointless lists - but hey, that's just me.) Rd232talk19:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Alternatively, adopt a fairly blunt-instrument definition of organised, politically motivated violence aimed at creating terror, stick that at the top of the list so readers and editors know what's what, and include a disclaimer that listing incidents here says nothing about the validity or otherwise of the political motivations. Rd232talk19:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Well whether that'll fly or not, a list like this without an agreed definition of some kind is highly problematic for both readers and editors. Rd232talk19:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I would endorse that compromise if it met wikipedia-policy. this discussion obviously isn't going anywhere if we don't list some solutions users can vote on. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
"I would endorse that compromise if it met wikipedia-policy." - that's a bit cryptic. Which compromise do you mean (I was thinking in terms of a solution that makes everybody happy, not a compromise, which isn't always the same thing) and what policy does it fail to meet? Rd232talk07:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
As long as it meets policy - until this measuring stick is made more explicit it would be foolish of me to start shopping. :D I'd say we would have to sift through what is politically motivated violence and what is not. For example, Hamas-generated violence is reportedly motivated through hate and bigotry. Their aim isn't simple to topple Israel but eliminate Jews in general, and that is made quite clear in their charter.
Perhaps it could be considered religiously motivated since Hamas institutionalizes pureWahabism, or so they say. Politically motivated-terrorism is a very blurry area, I could see ETA being counted there. Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Rd232's suggestion is an improvement but I'm still not convinced that it's even possible to have a sensible inclusion criteria if the title remains as it is. The way I see it is that this article in it's present form is essentially a list of a certain kind of criminal act commited by a certain category of criminal. If the inclusion criteria includes the criminal being a designated terrorist person/group somewhere then it presupposes that the criminal is known when often events like these are not claimed by any person or group. It also presupposes that the motive of the criminal is known and can therefore be assigned to the category 'terrorism' or perhaps we are talking about the effects rather than the motive. Who knows. It also presupposes that the criminal has been convicted of the crime otherwise we are simply treating accusations as verifiable facts by putting them in this list.
If this article were a list of murders by US nationals I think the current permissive inclusion criteria would probably result in O.J. being included in the list simply because a murder occured, he's an American and an RS could be found stating that he's in the murderer category. This seems problematic.
I think it's better to be able to include acts of this obviously 'terrorist-like' nature, suicide bombings, attacks against civilians etc whether or not the person or group is known and whether or not they have been designated as a 'terrorist' by someone, either a state or an RS. It's the event itself that matters not the 'terrorist' label. That requires changing the article title to lose the 'terrorist' label/categorisation. If an RS claims that an event was caused by X and we know that X is designated as a terrorist group by Y then we can say that and attribute it to the source.
For example, using a fairly typical event in Southern Thailand, a bomb goes off killing many civilians. No one claims it. No one has a clue who did it. No one knows the motivation of the attack. No one is running around terrorised by the event. No one calls it a terrorist act. Should this kind of event be in this article ? I would say yes because in my view the inclusion criteria for this article should be based on the nature of the event rather than how the event is labelled or what is known about the people who did it. If the article title remains as it is then this kind of event cannot be included in the list because we cannot label it as a terrorist event. Sean.hoyland - talk09:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Sean can you be more concise? Calling for a move is rather dubious considering we have about 20+ identical articles based on the year. List of terrorist incidents, 2008, List of terrorist incidents, 2007, etc. What you are suggesting would require a much more formal assessment that would be submitted to the higher echelons of wikipedia. I personally am comfortable with including incidents that are referred to as terrorist incidents by leaders in the War on Terror: (United States, European Union, etc..), recognized terrorist organizations (Al-Qaeda, Al-Shabab, Hamas, ETA, etc..) or acts explicitly referred to as incidents of terrorism by reliable 3rd party media. Maybe some people might be politically or personally opposed to certain inclusions but that's what's Wikipedia:verifiability is a core policy and not Truth. As they say, "one man's truth is another man's suicide bomber." Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Both articles cited above were created last year. This article was created by a since indefinitely-banned user. So what if we have to rethink it? The whole premise is flawed in my opinion, I'm on the same page as Sean. RomaC (talk) 10:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Considering you are an admin I'm rather surprised you'd pull that card. I was simply applying Roma's reasoning to this article. Just because the article was started by a sock does not mean it is somehow illegitimate, as is the case with Israel and the apartheid analogy. Wikifan12345 (talk) 10:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Sean, that's well put and contra Wikifan, I'm hard-pressed to see how you could have been much more concise. Terrorism is an interpretive label, and unless we can agree on a reasonable common definition to use, and be up front what it is, we'd be better off avoiding the term altogether. We could probably come up with an alternative name for the list to incorporate these violent acts without employing that interpretive label; otherwise, as I suggested above, we clarify who's doing the interpreting (and who rejects the label, if anyone). To be clear - the status quo of trying to list incidents described by "Reliable Sources" [big question about what RS means in relation to such an interpretive label] as "terrorist" (or violent incidents ascribed to organisations considered "terrorist") isn't remotely good enough. Lists with appropriate titles for such an approach would be fine. For a list that claims objectivity and lack of ambiguity in its title, this won't do. But I'm signing off here - I make a principle of not caring about WP lists. bye Rd232talk10:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Too ambiguous and very opinionated. ^^^^. As I said, keep it simple: Incidents should be limited to - Acts of "terrorism" committed by recognized parties of terrorism: Al-Qaeda, Al-Shabab, Hamas, ETA, or parties who are included in this West-driven War on Terror, or events explicitly referred to as incidents of terrorism by 3rd party reliable media. This falls well within Wikipedia:verifiability which is the core policy we should be applying in the dispute. No doubt there are legitimate concerns with individual events but we cross that bridge when we get there. Creating this unorthodox user-generated rubric of what-is-terrorism is not consistent with how encyclopedias are written. So while I am open to alternatives, I'd like to see a true, concrete example that has precedents or is at least endorsed by some kind of policy. Otherwise, this is simply a false consensus that could easily dismissed as POV-driven. Wikifan12345 (talk) 10:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
To be concise since you asked - I'll try an analogy
a) a 'list of novels published in 2009' is easy to construct and is encyclopedic (..almost).
b) a 'list of bad novels published in 2009' is not easy to construct and is unencyclopedic.
I'm advocating that this list of events should be like a) not b). The difference is the label. If people insist on the b) approach then the criteria used to assign a novel to the bad category should be very rigorous indeed and the bad label must be attributed directly to the sources as an opinion. Sean.hoyland - talk11:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Okay, to address your specific argument, for me your approach is the same as saying that there is such a thing as a 'recognized bad novel'. There isn't from an NPOV perspective. There is a novel (an event) and set of opinions about that novel (that event). Wiki's job is to tell people that the novel exists, describe it a bit and provide RS based opinions about it rather than label the novel as a 'recognized bad novel' by including it in a list of 'recognized bad novels'. If the NYT labels it as 'bad' and Reuters as a matter of policy don't label it 'bad' is it bad or not ? Your '3rd party reliable media' argument ignores Reuters, picks the NYT, labels the novel as bad so that it can be included in a list of bad novels and then claims compliance with WP:V. I say forget about the labels and focus on the events. List the events in a neutrally titled article, provide details of the event and include commentary about the event available in RS which may or may not include opinions that it was an act of terrorism or that the group who claimed it are designated as terrorist by so and so or that no one knows who did it but source X says it was probably Y etc etc. This way seems inherently more neutral, allows more events to be included legitimately, avoids the confirmation bias problems like the picking NYT and ignoring Reuters example and it means that an editor can't simply label something as terrorist by putting it in the list. If they want to say that it was a terrorist act then they need to add the information from the RS that describes the event as terrorist and attribute it to the source. Sean.hoyland - talk13:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes. It needs to be explicit. The source is but one issue, the other is whether the event is generally recognised as act of terrorism according to the definition, and those facts which lead to it being recognised as such are reported in a number of reliable sources. For example, even if the PRC government is reliably cited as having declared July 2009 Ürümqi riots as an act of terrorism, if the facts of the case do not fit the definition, it fails to be included because it falls at the first hurdle totally regardless of whether reliable source cites the PRC government's opinion. Ohconfucius (talk) 11:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. If the PRC call it an act of terrorism then it's an act of terrorism according to the PRC and the label should be directly attributed to them. It has the same validity as anyone else's opinion because there is no standard definition of terrorism. Wikipedia shouldn't label it as an act of terrorism by placing it in a 'list of terrorist acts' but that event should be in a list with a neutral title and it's entry should include the information that the PRC designated it as a terrorist act. Sean.hoyland - talk12:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
A couple of possible options: 1) Rename this article and others in the series to remove the problematic term "terrorism", for example something like "List of deadly attacks by militant groups" (but of course this excludes attacks by non-affiliated persons, who are perfectly capable of wreaking havoc); and 2) Create new, more specific list articles with less contentious characterizations ie. "List of suicide bombings," "List of non-state attacks in urban centers" etc. At present I really don't see any better choices. RomaC (talk) 14:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
It's true that there's no standard definition of terrorism -- also true that there is no standard definition of murder. But we sometimes use that word in Wikipedia. I sort of wish people would stop using the hoary old axiom "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter," except that it acts as a kind of shibboleth to separate those who understand this topic and those who do not. "Terrorism" is a word that is used unapologetically by reliable sources, not as a sort of colorful hyperbole to describe "militant" activities. This discussion makes sense only on Wikipedia; in the RL, reliable academic sources are able to use the word without fear that it is somehow meaningless. Indeed, one wonders why universities hire actual professors of Terrorism if the concept is so elusive as to possibly not exist. IronDuke17:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes we do use the word murder in Wikipedia and we have lists of murders with the name of the person found guilty of the crime of murder by a court. We also have lists of unsolved crimes that have been designated as murders by the police. If our lists of terrorist acts were a list of crimes where someone or something had been charged or convicted of terrorism that would be great. That isn't what people want though. They want to be the ones to decide whether something is a murder by picking RS that call it a murder while ignoring RS that don't call it a murder. It's an entirely different approach and it seems deeply flawed. If you look at how the RFK assassination is beginning to be rebranded as an act of terrorism in some RS I think it tells you something about the slippery nature of this term in the real world. On the other hand the term is getting dropped by some RS like Reuters, I haven't heard the BBC use it for a while and governments are dropping the war on terrorism terminology. Sean.hoyland - talk18:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Really? The trial and conviction of Seung-Hui Cho must have been an interesting affair, then. In fact, "found guilty" by a court, while a notable event, doesn't make it true. More reliable would be a consensus of reliable sources indicating an event was murder or, for our purposes, terrorism. (I know of no such consensus for RFK.) What the BBC does (and they are about as gentle on terrorism as a respectable news org can be) is notable, but far from commanding. And dropping a bit of terminology is just a propaganda shift, in no way reflecting what is or is not considered terrorism. IronDuke19:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
This is great but what about the "terrorist" rubric? I still believe keeping it very simple is by far the most fair and policy-endorsed process than creating a user-generated measurestick that as of now seems to be going nowhere. As I said, groups recognized in the War on Terror, or by countries such as the United States or the collective European Union, or incidents explicitly referred to as "terrorist"-in nature by 3rd party, reliable sources should determine what stays and what goes. Dare I whip out Wikipedia:verifiability once more? :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
In answer to Sean, the Chinese government's "terrorism/separatism" comment is there and so attributed. What I referred to was the use in the context of this article - just because the PRC govt says it is terrorism does not make it so. We need multiple references from reliable sources (and not rhetoric nor cited partisan comments) for that. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
The Chinese government is not a party to the War on Terror and condemns practically anyone who opposes its regime as terrorists/separatists/dissidents. All of which tend to receive the same punishment. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
<- I guess if people want to continue categorising events based on a self-fulfilling selection of sources and the notion that there is a consensus for an objective definition of terrorism that American, Chinese, Iranian, Israeli and Russian professors of terrorism would agree on then so be it. I personally will be disappointed that it will mean that certain events will be excluded from the list despite those events being indistinguishable in the real world from the ones that make it into the list. I also expect more edits wars over whether a event can legitimately be labelled a 'terrorist incident' and included in the list. Thankfully no one has created a list of 'Targeted killings that resulted in the death of civilians in territories considered to be occupied' but I suspect it's just a matter of time. Sean.hoyland - talk05:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
America has basically defined what terrorism is. We can deduce 99% of all terrorist incidents with 3 simple measuring sticks: A)Is the organization a recognized terror group by the EU, USA, or credible organization? B) Is the group a party to the War on Terror? C)Is the attack explicitly referred to as a terrorist incident in a 3rd party reliable source?
If an incident meets A, B, or C...it should probably go in the article. Any disputes over specific incidents, and there will be disputes no doubt, can be resolved as needed. Creating an unprecedented rubric to satisfy those who believe terrorism in Israel simply does not qualify (which is the source of the conflict - don't forget) is offensive. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
..and this 'America has basically defined what terrorism is' is exactly why we need to rename the article to not use the word terrorism. Sean.hoyland - talk06:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
..and let me be clear, if the consensus reached here ends up somehow excluding events like suicide bombings in Israel then something will have gone very horribly wrong indeed. Sean.hoyland - talk06:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
No, America (or the West, to be general)...unfortunately, has set the standard for terrorism. This War on Terror is further proof. Whether you think the standard for terrorism is pioneer UAVs blowin up Taliban hideouts in West Pakistan or Jew Nazis blowin up Palestinians fetus's is of little relevance. Wikipedia:verifiability is the policy we should be working on. Your aim seems to be targeting truth and that of course is not mutual with wikipedia. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
The difference in our approach is that we are choosing different things to verify.
I want to comply with WP:V by using reliable sources to verify the details of an event that by common sense alone is a particular kind of 'terrorist-like' event, suicide bombing, attacks on civilians etc. We all know what they are 99% of the time. Whether someone calls that event 'terrorist' makes no difference to me.
You want to comply with WP:V by using reliable sources to verify that the word terrorist was used.
We both want to include the same event. We both want to comply with WP:V. We are just chossing different things to verify. I think mine is more neutral and inclusive. Sean.hoyland - talk06:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
You are misrepresenting what I have said. If an organization is a recognized terrorist front, or is party to the war on terror, then it should be a no-brainer. Fortunately for us, practically 90% of the incidents on this page come from recognized, cited, and certified-terror groups. Then, if a certified-reliable source characterizes an incident as an act of terrorism, it should be noted and unless it is so absurd, like "anyone who opposes china is a terrorist!" it is very likely the RS is right. If this is disputed by other reliable sources, then I could see a justifiable content dispute. But what you are suggesting is to totally reject the measuring stick we have now, which is more than sufficient, with a new, unprecedented and unorthodox ruler that has yet to be fully explained. I understand you are have certain issues with some incidents being called acts of terror, but statements like "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" is so Noam Chomsky. Fortunately, he does not get to dictate the rules of terror...thank god. Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Wikifan, I wasn't deliberately misrepresenting you. I was just trying to be concise. That didn't work. The measuring stick we have now is designed for articles titled 'List of terrorist incidents, <year>'. Your proposal and the decision procedure proposed by Wikidemon below are perfectly sensible if and only if you accept the way this and all 'List of terrorist incidents, <year>' articles are framed. I do not accept that frame in the same way that I would not accept the frame of an article called 'List of fat celebrities' or 'List of stupid celebrities'. This is not because I believe "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". Try to imagine this. When I read that sentence through my NPOV glasses what I see is "one man's <blank> is another man's <blank>" because I don't recognise those terms as objective, neutral categories that we can use to place things in sets. I don't have any problems whatsoever with things being called acts of terror. Those details can and should be added to the article and attributed to the sources along with the rest of the info about the event. What I have a very major issue with is Wikipedia categorising information on the basis non-objective, non-standardised, non-global, non-neutral semantic categories. It's a form of semantic dementia to categorise things that way and I struggle to understand why it's allowed to stand in Wikipedia when it comes to the issue of terrorism when it isn't for things like fatness, stupidity, talentlessness, moral righteousness, wisdom, beauty etc etc. This goes to the heart of the way Wikipedia organises information. The simple fact that you accept the US labelling and reject the Chinese labelling should surely be enough to make you question the assumptions built into your decision procedure. Yes, it's possible to design various decision procedures to identify 'terrorist acts'. It's also possible to design perfectly sensible decision procedures to identify fat celebrities and stupid celebrities based on medical definitions of those terms but we don't categorise celebs that way because it's not a useful and neutral way to categorise them.
If this and other related articles are to remain framed in this way then I support Wikidemon's balance of sources approach. Sean.hoyland - talk04:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely. That's how Wikipedia works. Per WP:TERRORIST it is not a harmless semantic distinction. For us to call something a terrorist incident the balance of the reliable sources must do so. Otherwise we are engaging in a pernicious form of WP:SYNTH. Inferences are (generally) fine where they are obvious, undisputed, and modest. For examle, if a source on bartending says that the best liquor usually goes on the "top shelf" we can make the inference that "top" means "highest" and reword it to say "highest shelf"... that is, until someone correctly points out that "top shelf" may also be a colloquialism that does not necessarily correspond to the elevation above the bar counter. The key here is that if subject to reasonable good faith challenge, the burden is on the person seeking to add content to demonstrate that it is verifiable to a reliable source. There are indeed many disputes over whether a given incident is terrorist or not, reflecting differing opinions, political ideologies, calculated manipulation of the public discourse, police agencies and politicians seeking to gain support for their programs by claiming they are fighting terrorism, news organizations seeking to sensationalize otherwise unremarkable incidents of violence, etc. None of the ways people typically try to justify calling something terrorist work; "my definition is better than your definition", "let's call a spade a spade", and deductive reasoning along the lines of "Terrorism is X, this incident was Y, X is Y because of Z, therefore the incident is terrorism". If the matter were so clear there would not be a good faith dispute over it. If it's disputed it needs a reliable source. Note that I said the "balance" of the sources. A single source calling something terrorist may or may not meet the burden. Weighing sources is a complex issue but that's another matter. Wikidemon (talk) 18:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Comment. Per my argument on my talk page here, what you need is a source that provides the proof that it is indeed a terror attack or it cites another source that provides for such a proof. Just mentioning that it is a terror attack is not sufficient, nor is it necessary.
Now, I understand that terrorism is not well defined, but I guess what you're looking for is the fact that some attack was deliberately aimed against civilians and that then makes the attack illegal according to the Geneva conventions. That illegality has to be proven by the source, it cannot be just claimed to be the case in the source without any evidence by simply using the word "terrorism".
I have no problems calling a suicide attack in which many civilians are klled a terror attack, even if the source does not explicitely uses the term "terrorism". Because, what you're looking for is that the source provides proof that the criteria for a terror attack are met. A reliable source can be expected to accurately report on the reported events, so the proof has been provided for.
I do have problems with calling an attack on soldiers a terror attack, even if the source calls it a terror attack, for the reason explained above: The source in such a case cannot possibly have provided the proof that it is a terror attack, because according to international law it isn't. Count Iblis (talk) 02:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, and it concurs with what I said above. What happens in a war is that barbaric (some would call them 'heroic') acts are committed, but it's 'war' or 'battle' or 'assault', not 'terrorism'. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps but once again examples from the real world will clash with clean Wiki models of what events belong to the set 'terrorist incidents' e.g. it looks like the Australian government are going to charge the suspects just arrested for planning to attack an army base with crimes under national terrorism laws. Had that attack gone through our decision procedure would have had to deal with it. For me it's another example that shows that the framing of this issue is wrong and consequently that any decision procedure based on the 'terrorist incident' frame is going to problematic. The scenario that illustrates the problem of focusing on the 'terrorist' label rather than the nature of the event itself for me is this.
Event A: A bomb intended to kill civilians explodes in Israel. Every RS calls it a terrorist act.
Event B: A bomb intended to kill civilians explodes in Southern Thailand. No RS calls it a terrorist act. Why ? It doesn't matter for the purposes of the proposed decision procedure but there are many complex reasons.
All of the proposed decision procedures so far will put these events into different categories. Event A is included in the article. Event B is excluded from the article. The reasonable conclusions to draw for me are
Events A and B have important attributes in common; bombing, targeted civilians etc. These attributes are as important and I would argue significantly more important than whether the event is labeled 'terrorist' or not. The decision procedure cannot recognise things that are the same.
The decision procedure categorises events based on how RS label the event rather than the nature of the event, the important attributes of the event itself as reported by those same RS.
The frame of the article as defined by it's title and the associated decision procedure are designed to label events rather than to inform readers that a particular kind of event occurred.
It seems to me that this shows that it is better to categorise by the nature of the event and treat any opinions/labels such as 'terrorist act' as just another attribute of the event like where it occured, how many people died etc rather treating the label as the defining feature of the event. Sean.hoyland - talk10:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
It seems neater and cleaner than what we have at present. A bombing is labelled 'bombing', and we can forget about the 'terrorism' label. Ohconfucius (talk) 13:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Sean is suggesting a massive OR vio here. We do not now, nor hopefully will we ever, rely on the judgment of WP editors as to whether something fits under the label of terrorism. That process begins and ends with RS's. It may be regrettable that an incident in Thailand that ought to meet scholars' criteria somehow slips through the cracks, and is not labelled a terrorist act when it should, for consistency's sake, be so labeled, but there is nothing we can -- and nothing we should -- be doing about that. IronDuke03:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
No, you misunderstand. There is no OR here whatsoever. Quite the opposite. Forget about the motivations or opinions of editors. They are rendered literally irrelevant by this approach. This is just about organising information.
You just need to step out of the 'terrorist' box for a minute and imagine that the attribute 'terrorist incident' is no more sigficant than the attribute '50 killed' or the attribute 'in Madrid'. For example, when an RS describes an event (e.g. a bombing that targets civilians) it will provide information about various attributes of that event. Typically these would be something like; where, when, what (a bomb), #casualities, who did it/claimed it or not. This is our information. This is the stuff we can use to populate an article about 'Bombings that targeted civilians, 2009' or whatever the neutral, factual title is. Notice that there is nothing here about whether the RS called an event a terrorist incident or not. That information is not required to build an article that informs readers about 'Bombings that targeted civilians, 2009'. The article's title does not mention terrorist. If RS have described a particular event as a 'terrorist incident' then that's fine. We can add that information to the event's description in the article alongside the other information like where, when, #casualities. That way, the opinion that it was a 'terrorist incident' is treated the same way that we treat other attibutes. If no RS call it's a 'terrorist incident' then fine, we don't have that information. We just have where, when, #casualities. Do you see ? Everything is coming from the RS, bombing, targeted civilians, where, when, #casualties and the optional 'terrorist incident' descriptions if present in the RS. Sean.hoyland - talk09:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Apologies IronDuke but I just can't think how to make this clearer without using relational models. This article currently treats the attribute/label 'terrorist incident' from an RS as if it is a parent in a parent->child (i.e. article title->events in article) one to many referential relationship. I am saying that the attribute/label 'terrorist incident' is not a parent. It is an attribute of a child in a parent->child one to many referential relationship. The parent is 'Bombings that targeted civilians'. A child is an event. Attributes of the child are where, when, #casualities, terrorist incident label (or not) all of which come from an RS. Sean.hoyland - talk09:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Comment One caveat is that there is the tendency, even by reliable sources (in the broadest sense we use here on WP), to write headlines which make an immediate impact. However, these are no more than jingoism, and should be treated with some scepticism. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't really matter though. The thing to note about the approach I'm proposing is that it's deterministic. It's a mechanical, repeatable, neutral process based entirely on information in RS.
Was it a bombing? Y/N. Did it target civilians? Y/N When was it ? 2009 or not
All Yes -> Create entry in article
Add event details
Where was it ?
How many killed and injured ?
What happened in detail ?
Who did it ?
What commentary (eg. your headline info) was there about the event e.g. So and so said 'it's another example of Hamas' terror campaign'.
