Talk:List of terrorist incidents, January–June 2015

Scope

I suppose it wouldn't be a new year without a fresh edit war over what should or should not be mentioned on these yearly lists. It is my understanding that the purpose of these lists is to chronicle attacks by terrorists, not anti-terrorist operations by government agencies. YSSYguy (talk) 12:30, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Add the Tuesday 1/6 bombing of the Colorado Springs NAACP office. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.113.72.228 (talk) 02:45, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Removals

This article contained a lengthy "note" making a long list of unsourced claims, such as that NATO was "likely" to commit state terrorism. I have removed it. If it is readded, each assertion in the note will itself need a source (probably more than one) for that specific assertion. I also removed the so-called "NCAAPbombing" in the United States; this has not been determined to be terrorism as opposed to, say, some guy setting off an M-80 behind a hair salon. If it is returned to the article, it needs strong sourcing for the assertion that it actually was terrorism, not just one person's opinion that it was. Many of the other incidents listed here also have weak sourcing for the assertion that they were "terrorist attacks" and not simply "attacks"; I have not removed them - yet. However, every remaining item needs stronger sourcing than it has at present, not for the existence of the incident, but for the assertion that it was a "terrorist incident". Going by the year in the title, there are probably other articles like this with similarly weak sourcing, but that is not a reason to to;erate it here. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 14:17, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I guess we'll have to keep that in mind. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 03:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

The top removal notes re: NCAAP bombing appear to be biased. The NCAA is the governing body of college sports, whereas NCAAP is the leading civil rights organization defending & advocating for rights of Black Americans since early last century. The probability that ire against the mission of the NCAAP influenced the bombing, is much higher given who/what the NCAAP is, than a random kid's M80 going off in the back yard. Per the below definitions of terrorism, it very clearly fits that bill. Ninavizz 23:21 (talk), 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Colorado Springs

Regarding the NAACP bombing, the FBI has said that the incident "may have" been an act of terrorism [1]. I'd like to suggest that the inclusion of suspected terrorist incidents is more encyclopedic than their exclusion, though I'd agree it's important to note that the investigation is ongoing. Unless anyone has a convincing argument that suspected acts of terrorism should be excluded, I will restore the material. Elplatt (talk) 22:55, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

It was just a firecracker outside the NAACP's office that acutally was targeting a tax accountant accused of stealing a tax return (LA times). -- Aronzak (talk) 01:28, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Ferguson police shooting

Added the shooting in Ferguson but I'm not sure it counts but it seems to be based on anti-police sentiment. If it doesn't count I'm fine with it being taken off. YingBlanc (talk) 22:08, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Question

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/18/us/arizona-mesa-shootings/

Would this be considered a terrorist attack? I think so. B-Machine (talk) 20:09, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I think not, but in any case it's not for you or me or anyone at all on WP to interpret sources that way. YSSYguy (talk) 22:16, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Charleston SC shooting -

Given the shooter's motivations, this seems appropriate, and I have added it.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/a60d4bab877c428ca9ed296e7ec6bd67/suspect-church-shooting-had-apartheid-era-patches

Ryan.latvaitis (talk) 16:19, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Unless reliable sources refer to it as a terrorist attack, we can't include it here. I have looked around and most reliable sources I have reviewed do not reference this as a terrorist attack. I will also note that this incident does not seem to fall under the FBI's definition of terrorism, which is “the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.” I see no evidence that he had any political or social objectives. He just wanted to kill people for the sake of killing. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:21, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Alright, let's examine the evidence. We must unfortunately begin by examining our definitions, primarily the definition of the word terrorism. Your choice of the FBI's definition is a good one, though there are others. Unsurprisingly, there's an entire wikipedia page dedicated to various definitions. You conveyed the definition in an incomplete state, and since it's a big part of your objection, it must be treated in detail. The complete definition is below.

FBI Defnition, with relevant parts bolded: As used in this chapter— (1) the term “international terrorism” means activities that— (A) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended— (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum; (2) the term “national of the United States” has the meaning given such term in section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and Nationality Act; (3) the term “person” means any individual or entity capable of holding a legal or beneficial interest in property; (4) the term “act of war” means any act occurring in the course of— (A) declared war; (B) armed conflict, whether or not war has been declared, between two or more nations; or (C) armed conflict between military forces of any origin; and (5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that— (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended— (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

Accepting for the time being this definition of terrorism, this act qualifies as an act of terrorism.

Now that we've temporarily settled on a definition, we can move to the evidence.

The statements of the perpetrator are a good source of evidence to discern intent. Examining what's been reported so far, using only reliable sources, including reported testimony by relatives and friends of the perpetrator.

When the son of her friend pleaded with the shooter to stop, Johnson said the gunman replied: "'No, you've raped our women, and you are taking over the country ... I have to do what I have to do.' And he shot the young man." [...] A law enforcement official said witnesses told authorities the gunman stood up and said he was there "to shoot black people." CNN story

In recent weeks, Dylann Storm Roof reconnected with a childhood buddy he hadn't seen in five years and started railing about the Trayvon Martin case, about black people "taking over the world" and about the need for someone to do something about it for the sake of "the white race," the friend said Thursday. [...] "He said blacks were taking over the world. Someone needed to do something about it for the white race," Meek said, adding that the friends were getting drunk on vodka. "He said he wanted segregation between whites and blacks. I said, 'That's not the way it should be.' But he kept talking about it." [...] Meeks said Roof also told him that he had used birthday money from his parents to buy a gun and that he had "a plan." He didn't elaborate on what it was, but Meeks said he was worried — and said he knew Roof had the "Glock" — a .45 caliber pistol — in the trunk of his car. AP story

Dylann Roof admits he did it, two law enforcement officials said -- shooting and killing nine people he'd sat with for Bible study at a historically black church in Charleston, South Carolina. But why? To start a race war. That's what Roof told investigators, according to one of the officials. CNN story

Here we have evidence of intent, and further, premeditation, satisfying one part of the FBI's definition. They also do appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, primarily black people in the United States, as evidenced by his statements to victims, relatives, and friends, some of which I've reproduced above. Finally, it occurred primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

Taking the FBI's definition, and using reliably sourced evidence, I have shown that this act qualifies as an act of domestic terrorism. I invite you and others to weigh in, and will wait for additional debate before I update the page to reflect this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan.latvaitis (talk • contribs) 19:51, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

All of that is nice, but it's irrelevant to whether we include it in this article. There need to be reliable news sources (and not editorial opinion pieces) that refer to this incident as a terrorist attack. Please provide the sources. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:13, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad I was able to address and resolve the latter half of your initial complaint. I will also note that this incident does not seem to fall under the FBI's definition of terrorism, which is “the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.” I see no evidence that he had any political or social objectives. He just wanted to kill people for the sake of killing. Indeed editorials about how this ought to be called terrorism are not sufficient. At this time it seems appropriate to wait until prosecutors determine if they will in fact charge him with domestic terrorism. USA Today reported they were mulling over that charge. Ryan.latvaitis (talk) 20:17, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

News sources are now reporting that he has said his motivation was to start a race war and are referring to it as terrorism as a result. I'm now satisfied that this does qualify as a terrorist attack based on this new information. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:01, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Your thorough edits to the article to include this listing are appreciated. Ryan.latvaitis (talk) 21:04, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Attacks against soldiers etc. are not terrorism

The term "terrorism" is certainly misused when attacks against soldiers etc. are claimed to be terrorist incidents. A majority of the attacks listed here against Israelis are against soldiers, policemen and similiar. Sure, Israelis think it is terrorism (as the sources used here are from there), but that is not how international media portray it.

It is also noteworthy that attacks in the West Bank are listed as "/" under the location box. --IRISZOOM (talk) 17:36, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Accuarding to the pages Terrorism and Definitions of terrorism, it is wildly accepted that Terrorism is a form of violence whose goal is to achive political purposes in one way or another which is aimed against noncombatant innocent human beings or property.

The U.S. national security strategy defined terrorism as a "premeditated, politically motivated violence against innocents." It also says: " "premeditated, politically motivated violence against noncombatant targets"

A soldier/policemen/bordergurad which is not involved in fighting is a noncombatant and is innocent, especsially when there is no war going on right now.

Israel is not the only one using this term to describe attacks against soldiers, at least 12 countries who are in this list also use the term "terrorism" for attacks against soldiers. You can go search them:

• 3 January attack in the philipines
• 4 January attack in Mali
• 4 January attack in Somalia
• 6 January attack in Iraq
• 3 March attack in Yemen
• 4 March attack in Nigeria
• 2 April attack in India
• 3 April attack in Egypt
• 25 May attack in Afghanistan
• 8 June attack in Pakistan
• 16 July attack in Thailand
• 2 August attack in Turkey

And for the sake of order, please explane what you are saying about the flags in a new section please.

--'''Bolter21''' (talk) 19:10, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

No, soldiers etc. are not non-combatants as soon they are not fighting. If we are going to apply this logic, then Israeli attacks against Hamas should be listed too. There are many recent attacks, all of them because other Palestinian groups than Hamas have shot rockets at Israel.

It is true there are also attacks in other countries that are also wrongly listed as terrorist incidents here but the scope and discrepancy in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict is, as usual, staggering. The part about the flags belongs to this: incidents in the West Bank are listed with both a Palestinian and Israeli flag but incidents in for example Tel Aviv only shows an Israeli flag. As the West Bank is a part of Palestine or the Palestinian territories, only that flag should be listed. Perhaps in the case of Jerusalem, "/" makes sense, but there is only an Israeli flag now. That is when it comes to the city as a whole, not specific locations like Beit Hanina which can't be said to be in Israel. --IRISZOOM (talk) 19:54, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Israeli attacks in Gaza are not political violence. The motive of the attacks of Israel in Gaza are stratigical reasons. I am moving your question about the flag to a new section. --'''Bolter21''' (talk) 20:10, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

The discrepancy I am talking about is clearly shown in that answer. But what is great is that we don't have to make own classifications, we can just proceed from the fact that soldiers are not non-combatants even if they are not fighting.

If you want to create a new section for that, you can do it, but splitting my comment here would only make it look worse. --IRISZOOM (talk) 20:19, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Today there was a clash between IDF and local Palestinians in Jenin. The soldiers serrounded the house of the leader of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad in the West Bank and during the attempts to raid the house, a group of combatants opened fire on IDF soldiers, which esculated into a firefight - This is not a terrorist attack (to be honest this incident is happened right now).

The attack that occured in the 26th was a terrorist attack. The man bought an axe and patrolled in Jerusalem until he found an couple of Magav officers and then attacked them.--'''Bolter21''' (talk) 21:22, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

As they are not non-combatants, it still doesn't make it to be a terrorist attack. --IRISZOOM (talk) 11:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Then what do make it a terrorist attack?

Accuarding to Gabriel Palmer-Fernandez “Terrorism is the organized use of violence against civilians or their property, the political leadership of a nation, or soldiers (who are not combatants in a war) for political purposes.” --'''Bolter21''' (talk) 18:24, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Most of what is at Definitions of terrorism don't include soldiers etc. not fighting. Even if it would, that doesn't make those listed incidents to be a case of terrorism because Israeli newspapers etc. think so. I can't see international media agree with that.

By the way, you shouldn't delete your comments on talk pages if it is not on your own talk page. --IRISZOOM (talk) 19:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

That talk section is not relevent anymore. And Israeli media are not the only ones who desigante attacks on non-combatant soldiers as terrorist attacks. Not all definisions include the word "soldiers" but many definisions don't disqualify those actions as non-terrorist attacks. There is no difference then a non-combatant armed person to a civilian when the main cause is political violence. --'''Bolter21''' (talk) 06:23, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

You still shouldn't remove it from article talk pages and it should be archived instead.

Even if a few does include attacks against non-fighting soldiers as "terrorism", it is still has to be based on RS. What you have are Israeli newspapers saying basically every attack against soldiers from their country is terrorism while international media doesn't write that. --IRISZOOM (talk) 14:19, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Can you give me a proof that every single attack on Israeli soldiers are regarded as terrorist attack? Cause you are wrong as hell. And I understand the media for not writing about a stabbing, it's an insignificant event that happens everyday, but those are not "every attack", assaulting a soldier not in a fight with a knife, gun or an IED is not different then assaulting a civilian. Palestinian terroism achive nothing but political goals, especially when Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PLO) are technically in peace. --'''Bolter21''' (talk) 19:37, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

By reading Israeli newspapers, you get that picture and it is just to look on the sources for the incidents listed here and compare with international media. --IRISZOOM (talk) 20:06, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I meant, not all attacks against soldiers are regarded as terrorist attacks. There were more Israeli soldiers that were injured in incidents that were not regarded as terrorist attacks then soldiers that were injured in terrorist attacks. --Bolter21 21:33, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

• As User:Bolton said above. (Although it is interesting to note that during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, Russian and also some Western authorities on terrorism regarded attacks by Islamist militant/terrorist organizations on Russian soldiers on-duty as "terrorist" attacks.).E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Flags of Israel and Palestine in Palestinian related incidendt

@IRISZOOM-- The attacks that are in the West Bank are done in areas in the West Bank that are under the jurisdiction of Israeli municipalities (i.e. within the jurisdiction of Israeli settlements). Those lands are not annexed into Israel but under the controll of Israel via the Israeli Defense Force. As for East Jerusalem, East Jerusalem is fully annexed into Israel and regardless of the Palestinian claim and it's recognition, the attacks were done in the jurisdiction area of the City of Jerusalem which is entirely inside the Sovereign territory of the State of Israel while the sovereignty of Israeli-Settlements is indetermined. I created the two flag thing becuase someone changed one of the flag of Israel into the flag of Palestine and listing and Israeli settlement under the flag of Palestine will be stupid and misleading. --'''Bolter21''' (talk) 20:24, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I think you need to read about the Israeli-occupied territories and what they consist of. --IRISZOOM (talk) 02:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I didn't took a position in the conflict there (as biased it might sound). Unlike most people in wikipedia, I prefer to also look at the position of the rest 58 countries, including all of western europe (exept Sweden) and North America. Palestine is yet to be a legitemite sovereign country since it is under the veto of 3 UN permenent members and even without it, acts only as a De-Jure country. The state was proclaimed in 1988, after East Jerusalem was unilaterally annexed but at the time there was again, no legitemate sovereign country in the West Bank since it was only Israel and Jordan, so technically, Israel annexed East Jerusalem from a non-recognized Jordanian annexation of the West Bank and Jordan relinquished it's claim only in 1988, so labeling East Jerusaelm under a Palestinian Flag is a problem since East Jerusalem was annexed in 1967 and the State of Palestine was proclaimed in 1988 and only in 2013 could be named De-Jure soveregion country. As for the rest of the West Bank i.e. the Palestinian Territories, there is no absolout sovereignty. Areas in the Palestinian National Authority will be labeled with the flag of the Palestinian Natioanl authority while areas in area C will be labeled with the flag of both. Why? Because Wikipedia. As for the region, in order to maintein neutrality, the term "West Bank" should be use in replace for "Judea and Samaria" which is the name of the Israeli District and I would prefer the term "Palestinian Authority" for incidents that happened in the PA jurisdiction since it was created via an international agreement while an entity called "State of Palestine" was created in a non-absolout one-side action and is currently blocked by 3 permenents member of the UN and an aditional 55 members, most of which are Western Countries. Therefore the best name which will be neutral will be the West Bank. --'''Bolter21''' (talk) 10:46, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Regardless who recognizes the State of Palestine, the question about the Israeli-occupied territories is another one, with the Palestinian territories being one of them. The territories are seen as occupied, and therefore not a part of Israel, by the international community. So that for example the United Kingdom does not recognize the State of Palestine doesn't mean that they don't think the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) is occupied. As I said before, you should read the article Israeli-occupied territories, where you can read about the status according to the international community and reliable sources. --IRISZOOM (talk) 16:20, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I"ve read the article and I can tell you that I am not going to waste so much time and effort for a fight on my own to change some things me and many other Israelis disagree, including Israeli Left-Wings. I belive that wikipedia should give regard to De-Facto facts more then De-Jure claims, but that's a topic for another day.

As for the name of the area, if it should be anything at all, it should be the West Bank and the the Palestinian Territories because occupaid means that De-Jure it's a land that of a country that is occupaid by another countey but the State of Palestine in their current form never controlled any of those lands, the Palestinian people may have but not the State of Palestine. Therefore labeling a land as "Palestinian Territory" is a problem becuase there is still not a legal Palestinian State. As for the flag, the attacks, for example the attack in the 29 June was made inside the jurisiction area of Mateh Binyamin Regional Council is administrated by the State of Israel under the flag of Israel. You can't label an Israeli setllement on the flag of the State of Palestine only, especially when most of those settlements were built before the State of Palestine was proclaimed. --'''Bolter21''' (talk) 19:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

First of all, why wouldn't it be anything at all? Too many times, like in this article, anything with "Palestinian" on it is removed and they only state for example that it is in the West Bank but not which overall area/country it is in (the Palestinian territories), often because they claim this is the NPOV wording but this has nothing to do with NPOV. I don't care much if the Palestinian flag for incidents that have taken place in settlements is there or if it says "State of Palestine" but there is no reason to not mention the Palestinian territories and of course it can't be said to be in Israel, no matter how much Israel has decided to occupy the area. It is simply factually incorrect and POV that places in the occupied territories are in Israel. --IRISZOOM (talk) 11:21, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Calling the land Palestinian territory is not a NPOV simply because there is still an ongoing territorial dispute there. One thing is certain, if we will change it from "West Bank" to "Palestinian Territories", still we wouldn't be able to label an Israeli Settlement under a Palestinian flag alone. ^{(I can't expand my commant right now because I am on 1.5 hours of sleep but I will tommorow noon if I"ll had time)}--'''Bolter21''' (talk) 12:33, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

'"Palestinian territories" and occupied Palestinian territories (OPT or oPt) are descriptions often used to describe the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) and the Gaza Strip.'

One has to keep in mind the distintion between the Palestinian territories and State of Palestine. One is a piece of land without clearly defined owner, the other is a limited state without clearly defined lands. Some people believe that should be one and the same, some believe that they shouldn't, both POVs deserve representation. They should not be confused or used interchangeably in any WP article despite the misleadingly similar names.“WarKosign” 13:11, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

There is a political dispute but a vast majority sees it as occupied territory belonging to the Palestinians. To create a false balance, where we give equal weight to the Israeli position that it is "disputed territories" instead occupied territory, is wrong. "West Bank" can still be there but either Palestinian territories or the State of Palestine should be mentioned too. If there should be a Palestinian flag too in the case when it takes places in settlements isn't important but one of this area or country should be mentioned. They are not the same but for those who don't want the State of Palestine to be mentioned, at least the Palestinian territories should be acceptable to use. --IRISZOOM (talk) 13:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

There is no dispute that these incidents occurred in the West Bank, part of what is called Palestinian territories. Even those who recognize the state stated that the exact borders are yet to be set by negotiations, therefore it is impossible to say if the incidents occurred in the State of Palestine or outside of it. At most it can be said that the incident happened on territory claimed by the state. This is exactly the distinction between the land and the state that I wrote about above. “WarKosign” 13:18, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, here it is a dispute just above you to say it happened in the Palestinian territories. Redrawing of borders will be needed for a peace agreement but as of now, the 1967 lines are seen as what belongs to the State of Palestine. However, it is not as recognized as the Palestinian territories. I have said at least the latter should be acceptable but Bolter21 doesn't agree. --IRISZOOM (talk) 13:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Seen by whom ? The usual description is "based on the pre- 1967 borders", which means it is not exactly within the green line - maybe more, maybe less, maybe equal area with area exchanges. What exactly would be the border, and whether it will ever happen at all is a matter of opinion and speculation, certainly not something we should be doing here. “WarKosign” 13:43, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it is based on the 1967 lines, as what is inside them is occupied territory and not a part of Israel. The State of Palestine's borders is not resolved but neither are Israel's but we still say incidents in Haifa are in Israel and not in "areas claimed by Israel". So neither country has defined borders with each other but we know for example what the West Bank looks like and who it belongs to. If it belonged to the Palestinian Authority back then, it belongs to the successor (State of Palestine) now. Some don't recognize that country. However, the Palestinian territories is very clear, and at least this should be mentioned as the location. --IRISZOOM (talk) 14:06, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

This is a false argument. Israel has internationally recognized borders (which Israel itself doesn't fully accept in Golan and East Jerusalem). The border between Israel and the West Bank is the green line. State of Palestine does not have any borders, if it will some day have sovereignty over some of the West Bank, then Israel would be bordering it, until then - it's just incorrect describing anything as being "in" state of Palestine. It is quite correct describing something as being in the West Bank or in Palestinian Territories, because these are well defined geographical boundaries. These territories do not "belong" to anyone until the dispute is settled. “WarKosign” 06:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

You are conflating sovereignty with the ability to exercise it (power). Palestine is now a sovereign state but just like Israel, they have to negotiate the borders to get it approved by the world. Clearly the West Bank and the Palestinian territories belong to the Palestinians, however, some don't recognize the State of Palestine. You are making it to look like they have no defined owners and are just up for grab when nearly everyone agrees it should belong to a Palestinian state, though one country (Israel) wants notable parts of it.

This discussion however belongs to a more specific article, like State of Palestine. What I am arguing mostly for here is that at least the Palestinian territories should be stated too instead of just the West Bank and that places in occupied territories can't be said to be in Israel. This is a no-brainer, especially the last where there have been tons of discussions. Right now, places in East Jerusalem are claimed to be in Israel, including At-Tur and Beit Hanina. Then we have incidents that took place in the West Bank settlements under both an Israeli and Palestinian flag while only the West Bank is mentioned as the location.

Again, "Clearly" to whom ? This is a matter of opinion, and you are fully entitled to your own, yet it's irrelevant to any article. The lands do not have a defined owner, and while the popular opinion is that they should belong to Palestinians, at the moment they do not.

I agree that this discussion became pointless. "Palestinian territories" is a correct description of the location, however "West Bank" is more specific (unless the incident occurred in Gaza) and therefore more correct. “WarKosign” 14:46, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I see a wide consensus in the world that there should be a Palestinian state based on the 1967 lines because those are the occupied territories. The only country not agreeing is Israel.

Both could be there, just like it says "Tel Aviv, Israel", "Seoul, South Korea", "Sinai, Egypt", "Mogadishu, Somalia" etc. --IRISZOOM (talk) 14:50, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

How exactly is "All agree that there should be a Palestinian State on pre-67 (should be called post 48) borders" is NPOV? If it was an absolute situation like for example violation of Human Rights in North Korea I would accept it but when subjecting an Israeli Settlement as being part of a "Palestinian Land" who was proclaimed after the settlemnt was built.. you understand why it is absurd. West Bank on the other hand is indeed absolute and also not completly NPOW since I, as an Israeli who speak Hebrew would like to call it "Judea and Samaria" since the name "West Bank" was named by the Jordanians who illegaly conquered the "West Bank" and annexed it into their country in 1948 while the name Judea dates back at least 3000 years, but "West Bank" is more netural then "Judea and Samaria" since the acual relevent people - the Palestinians regard it as "West Bank". Who is the UN? A group of forgioners who say some things, how come a biased thing they say (yes it is) is netural and even if it's not biased, how come it is absolute? --'''Bolter21''' (talk) 19:40, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

It isn't absurd because that is where the country is now and the term "Palestinian territories" is much older than that. This is not about what you personally think about the terms but what WP:RELIABLESOURCES think. That and the "West Bank" are by far the most used names. --IRISZOOM (talk) 18:39, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

So you claim that a De-Jure state with limited recognition and no sovereignty that was proclaimed after the settlements were established is the location of the settlement? If we are talking about areas that are under the administration of the Palestinian Authority it is lands that are "Palestinian" but the rest are not absoloutly a part of a yet to be an independent-sovereign country with Veto on it's existance, accuarding to international law it is not a state, but a De-Jure state. --'''Bolter21''' (talk) 19:56, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

First of all, "no sovereignty" is not true because it is a sovereign state. Power is another thing. First you talked about why we can't use the Palestinian territories as the location and now concentrate on Palestine. Of course places can be older than countries, like for example Acre is much older than Israel but it is still in Israel regardless when that country was established. As I said, the usage of Palestine is not clear, but the Palestinian territories is very clear. --IRISZOOM (talk) 20:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

The definition of occupeid territoriy is:

Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.

The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.

Therefore, accuarding to international law, the term occupetion is wrong, but that's one thing cause anyway the world is regarding it as occupetion which already not netural at all. If you call it "Palestinian Occupeid" you simply say that the State of Palestine have existed, which is also not netural. I don't ask you to write "Judea and Samaria" becuase it is the De-Facto province when attacks are outside the PNA, but I just say that using the term Palestinian Occupeid Territories is not netural. I as an Israeli don't recognize the name "West Bank", it has no historical sources but was named by Jordan when they annexed it in 1950, but it's the most netural since it doesn't suggest that a Palestinian State have ever existed regardless of no historical record and it doesn't suggest the land belong to the State of Israel or the Jews. It is just a name everyone can accept becuase it is litterally, the West Bank of the Jordan river. The only dispute is about Jerusalem and Latrun. --'''Bolter21''' (talk) 11:27, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Again, what matters is what WP:RELIABLESOURCES say. The view that it is occupied and called the Palestinian territories is the consensus by far and that is what matters. --IRISZOOM (talk) 17:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

"Palestinian Territories" is the name often applied to West Bank and Gaza, and this use is supported by many sources. However, it is vague, there exists a more specific name for the place: West Bank, which is as common, as supported by the sources and is more specific - therefore provides more information to the readers. Do you have any policy-based reason to object to using this term ? “WarKosign” 20:43, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I responded to that the last time you made this argument, which was some days ago, and you never responded. So I will repeat what I wrote then: "Both could be there, just like it says "Tel Aviv, Israel", "Seoul, South Korea", "Sinai, Egypt", "Mogadishu, Somalia" etc.". Why make it different when it comes to the Palestinian territories? --IRISZOOM (talk) 04:07, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't and still am not sure what you meant. One big difference between the examples you gave and Palestinian territories is that Israel, Korea, Egypt and Somalia are countries while Palestinian territories is a geographical region. It is correct to say "Beit Jala, Palestinian territories" but it is more correct to say "Beit Jala, West Bank". Including name of the Israeli regional council is also similar to other items on the list, which often mention the area/province where the incident took place. Naming a Palestinian governorate is a possibility, although they are more relevant when the location is a Palestinian city/village such as Bir Nabala and not an Israeli settlement such as Kfar Tapuach. “WarKosign” 06:52, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I see no difference in that regard. If all other incidents are listed with mentioning the country as a whole, the equivalent is to mention the Palestinian territories too, which by the way also has a political meaning. West Bank can still be there but it isn't enough, just as it isn't enough to only say "Sinai" or "Tel Aviv, Tel Aviv District". "Beit Jala, West Bank, Palestinian territories" gives much more info than "Beit Jala, West Bank" and I see no reason it can't be written like that. --IRISZOOM (talk) 12:11, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

For now, I have removed the Israeli flags for places in the West Bank and also corrected that places in East Jerusalem are said to be in Israel. I don't know why Israeli regional councils in the West Bank are mentioned as if they were accepted by the international community. This is POV and not factually correct. --IRISZOOM (talk) 13:31, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I have removed those councils too. This usage of the term is very POV. --IRISZOOM (talk) 13:39, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Then I remove the Palestinian flags. A non-legal state's flag is not the flag of a settlement of another state regardless of if it is an occupetion or not. I also remove the flag from Duma becuase Duma is in the Palestinian Authority, not a country. The flag of Area C and East Jerusalem are also the flag of Israel but if that's not ok for you, so the Palestinian Authority is not a state and therefore the flag will be removed. --Bolter21 14:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of the legality of State of Palestine, it does not own the Palestinian territories. It only claims and partially controls some of the territories. An incident directed against Israeli citizens in an Israeli settlement in the West Bank is more associated with Israel than with State of Palestine, so if there should be only one flag it should be the flag of Israel. “WarKosign” 15:58, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I can be only one flag, two flags or no flags. Palestinian flag alone is not an option. One thing is certein, a Palestinian flag on East Jerusalem is not acceptable. --Bolter21 16:55, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I believe that there should be both flags, but no flag is also a valid option. Only Israeli flag is likely to upset some people and invite vandalism, and State of Palestine flag for Israeli settlements is just wrong. “WarKosign” 17:32, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Bolter21, you say the Palestinian Authority is not a country but you also say that "Duma is in the Palestinian Authority" and put a flag in the article too. I haven't mentioned the PA because it was a government, which has been dissolved or merged into Palestine.

Putting a Palestinian flag, though {{flagicon|Palestinian territories}} can be used if you prefer that, is totally acceptable. The flags has nothing to do with whom it is directed against. No matter what one thinks of the State of Palestine, Palestinian territories is as noted many times here a different thing and the most used term by far. It includes East Jerusalem. What administrative areas PLO and Israel has decided on does not change what the Palestinian territories consists of.

This is a telling example of a common problem in Wikipedia. Some want to remove any mention of Palestine, try to include Israeli flags for settlements in the Palestinian territories, include Israeli flags for Jerusalem (where no country recognize Israeli sovereignty in any part of the city) and it is similiar when it comes to the location etc.

One can argue that a Palestinian flag in an entry that list incidents in settlements is misleading and shouldn't be used. Palestinian territories however is the area it is located in and should be used, no matter how much Israel occupies the area. It even had an ISO 3166 code but the designation was changed to "Palestine, State of" nearly three years ago (see ISO 3166-2:PS). Therefore, your removal of Palestinian flags from Palestinian cities and villages has no basis (which you also said you did in response for me removing Israeli flags and councicils from incidents in the Palestinian territories) and will be reverted. --IRISZOOM (talk) 17:46, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Flag of Palestinian Territories is a mistake in the template. This is the flag of PLO/PNA/SoP, not the territories. In fact the icon links to the PNA article.

ISO 3166-2:PS covers cities that are under control of SoP, but it does not cover all the territories under Israeli control. “WarKosign” 19:11, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The territory is Palestinian, hence the name, so it makes sense to use a Palestinian flag and that is why there is a template called that. Same with {{flagicon|West Bank}} or {{flagicon|Gaza Strip}}. So using a Palestinian flag for Duma or the West Bank as a whole is understandable.

That ISO code is for Palestine and the Palestinian territories before that. --IRISZOOM (talk) 19:26, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The people named themselves after the land, not the other way around. You really should know this when you edit in the I/P area. Unless the land is a part of a state it is incorrect to apply the flag of the state to it. Template:Country data Palestinian territories is a redirect to template:Country data Palestinian National Authority, which is simply wrong - they represent two different concepts that have different wikipedia articles. “WarKosign” 19:54, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

After Palestine, yes, not the Palestinian territories which consists only of the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) and Gaza. Those territories are seen as occupied Palestinian territory so there is nothing wrong with showing a flag that is used by the people and their representatives. --IRISZOOM (talk) 20:24, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you understand that the topics you claim "many people agree on" contradict international law that those "people" (UN, UK etc.) have created. Technically you can't list anything in West Bank as anything simply becuase legaly it's a hole with no sovereignty. Also, the Palestinian National Authority was never dissolved, Abu Mazen just changed the name when it was accepted to the UN as an observer member. There was no political process, just a name change. And you can't make edits based on things that were rejected during this argument. If you will continue, I will just bring back the Israeli Flags cause I still think it is the most neutral one and 2 of the 3 people discussing this here agree upon this. --Bolter21 21:56, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

No, I understand fully what I am saying. There is no question amongst reliable sources that the West Bank is occupied and part of the Palestinian territories, there is absolutely no contradiction or legal hole. We follow RS, not what you personally think, and I said that from the beginning.

The PA was transformed into the State of Palestine. That isn't my point any way but what you wrote about PA and then saying something is in it. A town or city can't be inside a government, which was what PA was. Palestinian territories and State of Palestine are better terms and don't limit it to Area A as you want.

Which things have been rejected? That we can't have Palestinian flags for Palestinian cities and towns? We have had that for years on Wikipedia. Just look at for example articles listed on List of twin towns and sister cities in the Palestinian territories, though the name of the location differs. That was mostly what I changed, together with your addition that the Palestinian Authority is the location and that something took place in an administrative area of Judea and Samaria Area, which is not NPOV. Talking about that, you should think about the 1RR, which you have violated.

You also have to stop coming with such threats. Are you going to return POV because you don't like something else, as in this case reinsert Israeli flags to settlements in the Palestinian territories because I reinsert Palestinian flags to Palestinian cities and towns? I can understand that having Palestinian flags on entries about incidents in Israeli settlements is misleading, which is why I didn't reinsert them there, but an Israeli flag can't be there as it is not inside that country's territory. Earlier this year, there was a consensus to remove the Israeli flag for Ariel as you can see in Talk:Mobile, Alabama#RfC: Flag icon for Ariel, an Israel in the occupied West Bank. --IRISZOOM (talk) 22:34, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The Palestinian Territories mean the Lands of the State of Palestine. The State of Palestine is not a legal nation. Try to deny this. And you placed Palestinian flags on Israeli cities and towns, including those within it's full sovereign jurisdiction area, which was firmly rejected by me and WarKosign. I think that puting two flags, in order to show both sides claim. RS is RS but not especially netural. If an Israeli flag can't be showen on an Israeli settlement, who opperate under the flag of Israel in councils that are administrated by Israel but not annexed because of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, then you obviously can't place a Palestinian flag on it since the Palestinian flag has nothing to do with it. --Bolter21 23:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Haven't we already discussed that much? The Palestinian territories is a different thing than the State of Palestine, though the state claims that territory, and was used before that state was proclaimed. Palestine is a sovereign state now.

Where did I do that? My edit can be seen here. Israel administers the area and it has nothing to do with sovereignty. It isn't NPOV by adding both flags because then you have an Israeli flag to a settlement, which can't be acceptable as it isn't inside Israel's borders. At least it is a fact that it is located in the Palestinian territories, of which the West Bank is a part of, but I just mentioned that I can understand why there shouldn't be a Palestinian flag there. So what I am saying is that Palestinian flags should be there for Palestinian cities and towns and the Palestinian territories or State of Palestine should be mentioned as the location.

As I think this article is covered by WP:1RR and don't like revert wars, I will wait to solve this. However, you changed other things than the flags. What makes you think it is okay to say something is in Mateh Binyamin Regional Council when we can't say something is in Judea and Samaria Area? I am also wondering why you decided to introduce into this article that Duma is in the Palestinian Authority. --IRISZOOM (talk) 23:29, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

We discussed but no conclution was reached. And Mateh Binyamin is the jurisdictional area of Mateh Binyamin, the attacks occured not on a settlement jurisdiction area. I can agree upon listing the name of the road but no Palestinian flag can be "waved" in Area C. --Bolter21 23:46, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I am referring to if the Palestinian territories and the State of Palestine are the same thing, which has been discussed many times now.

I don't understand what you mean about Mateh Binyamin and name of the road. The current wording is "in highway 60 in Binyamin". It is POV to say it is in an administrative area of Judea and Samaria Area.

So a Palestinian flag can't be used to for example Susya (which is located in Area C)? Notice that you removed the Palestinian flag from the West Bank as a whole, from "Near Bir Nabala" and "Near Beit Jala". The other dispute was about the name of the location. Can't the Palestinian territories be used? For some reason you introduced Duma is in the PA. --IRISZOOM (talk) 00:17, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Understand that the "Location" columns purpose is to indicate the location of the attack. An attack occured on a road. The road is not inside any settlement (Israeli or Palestinians) and they only De-Facto location is the Jurisdiction area where the attack occured. Bir Nabala and Beit Jala are in the PNA's territory but the attack occured in Area C, in the area of Mateh Binyamin. If an attack will occure in the area around Jenin, which is mostly under Palestinian controll and there are many areas out side of (Palestinian) settlements then an attack there would be describes as an attack in "Road X, Jenin Governorate" since it is physically inside the Jenin Governorate. I used the council thing in order not to say "Judea and Samaria area" becuase this is the De-Facto location but I knew it will never be accepted so I only listed the jurisdiction area and listed it as in the West Bank, not regarding any State or Entity since Palestine and the Israeli controll in the West Bank are not a legal fact but a De-Facto fact that make people go nuts on talk pages.

As I said before, for an Israeli Settlement, it is 2 flags, one Israeli flag or no flags. A Palestinian flag can't be waved in East Jerusalem and an Israeli flag won't be waved on Palestinian controlled lands, call them however you want. The general location should be West Bank and not "oPt" or "Judea and Samaria" even though the second one, for Area C is De-Facto. Personally I think it is ridiculous that the De-Facto situation is not accepted by people in Wikipedia who make a cynical use of the tools of Wikipedia to eliminate facts but I can't fight that so I go for the third option - Give both a voice, not only the Palestinians and not only the Israelis. It is a nonsense to put a Palestinian flag over an Israeli controlled area, especially on an annexed territory that was never under the flag of the State of Palestine giving the fact they never established nothing in East Jerusalem rather then claims. --Bolter21 10:59, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Of course you come with this usual talk about "de facto situation" and that I and others do eliminate facts etc. I always say and will also say now that no one is denying that Israel occupies the area. What we can't do however, per NPOV and factual accuracy, is to for example accept the Israeli view that something "is in Judea and Samaria". The council is a subregion of the Judea and Samaria Area. How can it be okay to say something is in the council but not in the district as a whole? It isn't.

Similiarly, that Israel views East Jerusalem as its own doesn't mean we can in Wikipedia's neutral voice state that it is Israel's. According to international law, as viewed by reliable sources, East Jerusalem is part of the occupied Palestinian territories. It isn't something you can just throw away by saying that Israel controls it and annexed it (which may not be correct according to some scholars like Ian Lustick). This is a serious POV that takes one very minority position against a wide consensus. WP:FALSEBALANCE comes in here. --IRISZOOM (talk) 12:34, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I restored Palestinian flag for the act of terror in Duma and changed its location to Palestinian Territories. It makes no sense to have flag of Israel there.

For Nahliel I added both flags, since while it's located on Palestinian territories it's an Israeli settlement under Israeli control and the act of terror was directed specifically against Israeli citizens. I kept Mateh Binyamin Regional Council out of the description since Ramallah and al-Bireh Governorate would be as correct but would sound absurd. If this is an acceptable compromise, I'll apply the same logic to the rest of the incidents. “WarKosign” 18:21, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay but why no flag for the West Bank as whole or other instances like "Near Bir Nabala" and "Near Beit Jala"? Regarding the Israeli flag on settlements, I think it should be left out, just as the Palestinian flag. Both can be misleading. As mentioned, no flag was agreed to on Ariel on Mobile, Alabama.

The part about Binyamin is in the entry for the attack on 6 August. I don't think it is necessary to mention any Palestinian governorate by the way. --IRISZOOM (talk) 18:46, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Near Beit Jala is inside Israeli Jursdiction area. If an attack occures near Kobani but inside Turkey, it's in Turkey. The "near" is for giving a better sense of location. As I said again, I prefer adding also the name of the road, for some reason people deleted it in the past. --Bolter21 19:37, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I edited only entries on one month picked at random which happened to be July, since I didn't want to work too hard on an edit that might be reverted. Once we have a consensus I'll apply the same logic everywhere on the page. The text near the two flags clearly says "Israeli settlement" and "West bank", so I don't see how where it could mislead anyone. “WarKosign” 20:13, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

The difference is that the "Israeli Jursdiction area" you are talking about is about an occupied territory. I have already said why it is POV to say something took place in a subregion of the Judea and Samaria Area.

Okay. As all of the other flags are there to identify the location, it would be hard to see why it is different when it comes to the Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Ariel, which was identified as an Israeli settlement in the West Bank, did not have an Israeli flag on Mobile, Alabama per a consensus there. --IRISZOOM (talk) 20:31, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

And because listing Judea and Samaria (I"ll try to call it "JSA") is a POV, I list both flags. The Palestinian held lands are not part of a country and the proclaimed "State of Palestine" is also not a legal country. Because of this I name it West Bank and not oPt, PNA, SoP or JSA. An Israeli settlement is associated with an Israeli flag more then a Palestinian flag but on the same time it is not inside Israel defined sovereign territory but under jurisdiction of Israel, therefore I put a flag of Palestine to represent the fact Israel is not the only party claiming this settlement's area. As for East Jerusalem, it is inside Israel soveregin territory and only in it. A Palestinian flag cannot be associated with East Jerusalem in any way. --Bolter21 21:23, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

The Israeli flag for a place in the West Bank can be misleading. Same for the Palestinian flag when it comes to settlements so it will be better without any.

I will not once more mention the difference between the Palestinian territories and the State of Palestine and that the latter is a state now. Same goes for the status of East Jerusalem. --IRISZOOM (talk) 22:17, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Explane why it is misleading? Especially when there are both flags? --Bolter21 09:31, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I wrote "As all of the other flags are there to identify the location, it would be hard to see why it is different when it comes to the Israeli settlements in the West Bank" before. --IRISZOOM (talk) 15:43, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Well that's because people insisted that a flag of a non-legal state is more legitemate then the flag associated with an unrecognized settlement. I still think that the flag associated with the settlement - the flag of Israel, is the flag that should be used, but this is for many people as if the sky fell upon earth so Two Flags Solution. It won't be misleading if you see two flags, it will be much more confusing if there won't be any flags at all. If people won't know that there is a dispute on this area, they can go the the link of the location to see it. An explenation on the newly added 'list guidelines' section is also not a bad idea. --Bolter21 09:59, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

IRISZOOM, WarKosign: So I am returning the Two Flags Solution or you have more to say?

I have already said many times now that I don't think the Palestinian flag should be there either. It is not about which flag is "associated with the settlement" because the issue, and I am getting tired of repeating this too, is that the West Bank is not a part of Israel and therefore the flag should not be used. That was also what was agreed for on Mobile, Alabama regarding Ariel. It is simply misleading. --IRISZOOM (talk) 14:29, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

IMO no flag is not ideal but acceptable. “WarKosign” 15:13, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I disagree to leave it as no flags but no flags in acceptable because the other option is only a Palestinian flag which has no connection to this reality. I still want to know why putting two flags is more misleading and confusing then putting no flags? You explaned why is it confusing but not why it is better to have no flags then two flags.--Bolter21 21:56, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Because it is not in Israel no matter how many flags it is shown together with. --IRISZOOM (talk) 02:19, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Jerusalem in it's entirety stays with one flag. --Bolter21 12:43, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

You are insisting on this but there is no basis that Jerusalem as a whole is in Israel and certainly not East Jerusalem. --IRISZOOM (talk) 13:53, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Jerusalem is under the full sovereignty of Israel. --Bolter21 15:48, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Not according to the international community and a vast majority of reliable sources. --IRISZOOM (talk) 19:20, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Accuarding to the international community East Jerusalem is in the State of Palestine. --Bolter21 19:23, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

We've been over it several times. According to sources whole Jerusalem is de-facto in Israel (populated by Israelis and administered by Israel). Most of the world disputes the legality of the annexation of eastern part of Jerusalem, not the fact that Israel controls and administers it. Terror attacks against Israelis in east Jerusalem occur specifically because it is annexed by Israel, so of course flag of Israel belongs there. If you wish, we can have a "legality of annexation is internationally disputed" note right next to the flag. “WarKosign” 06:05, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

No, it is your wording that it is "de facto in Israel". I have already said this many times before, including to you, but that Israel occupies the area doesn't in any way mean it is "de facto in Israel". The international community views East Jerusalem as occupied territory and that must be reflected here too, which it is in other articles. An Israeli flag on occupied territories is wrong and it won't change no matter how much Israel claims the territory and in what what they administers it. --IRISZOOM (talk) 17:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Not much has changed. There is no Palestinian flag or mention of the Palestinian territories (the two which were readded by WarKosign on 12 September were removed partly by an IP and partly by Bolter21 who writes that there was a consensus for this when I supported WarKosign's addition, though I didn't think it was enough, so if there was a consensus it clearly wasn't one for removing them). It is still written that something took place "in Binyamin". As I said, this can't be there for the same reason we can't say something is "in Samaria" or similiar. So I will go ahead and fix it. Attacks in East Jerusalem continues to be marked with an Israeli flag and said to be in Israel when it isn't there --IRISZOOM (talk) 18:12, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I will do it.. eventially, cause I need to research about if the attacks occured inside East Jerusalem or not, cuase some were made in roads that you can't determine if it was inside the Green Line or outside of it (and understand that for an Israeli it is absurd but what can I do..).

I will use this stage to ask you to say something in my discussion on Palestinian National Authority. --Bolter21 23:39, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

The article about for example the attack that lead to Alexander Levlovitch getting killed is clear about that it happened in Sur Baher, East Jerusalem.

Okay, I will take a look on that. --IRISZOOM (talk) --IRISZOOM (talk) 09:17, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

If you don't mind I"ll wait for the B'tselem report in 1 November 2015 for this specific attack cause I saw many sources that show different locations and some can't be determined if they were within the Green Line or not. --Bolter21 09:26, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Do you have sources that say it was in some other place than Sur Baher? --IRISZOOM (talk) 10:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

The attack occured in Asher Winer street and as you can see here, the road is also inside the Green Line and therefore I"ll just count on B'tselem in two days from now. --Bolter21 11:41, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but the sources say it was on that street in East Jerusalem and near Sur Baher. --IRISZOOM (talk) 10:28, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Should I add the rocket launching from Gaza to Israel although non have resaulted any casualties?

There were around 9 rocket launches from the Gaza Strip to Israel (If I remember correct) and all of them were aimed at Israeli cities. The perpetrator on all cases is a group called Army of the Islamic State which is a wing of Ansar Bait al-Maqdis which is a wing of ISIL. I didn't add them because I acually forgot that rocket shooting is also a form of terrorism, especially when the rocket shootings are done by Salafist groups who shoot the rockets not for hurting Israel but for hurting Hamas, in other words, they are threatening Israeli civilians so Hamas would get hurt. But, no casualties what-so-ever (yet and hopefully it will stay like it). What do you thing? --'''Bolter21''' (talk) 06:22, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

From Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel: "The attacks ... have been described as terrorism by United Nations, European Union and Israeli officials". I think it justifies listing every single attack in this list as well. However, since there are so many of them, and they already have a dedicated list, I'm not sure it's a good idea. Perhaps there is a way to indicate here that these rockets attacks are also acts of terror that are listed elsewhere ? “WarKosign” 06:26, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Firstly I will add a link to the list of the rocket attacks since as you said they are described as terrorist attacks. Secondly, I think that if I will ever list a rocket attack it will be listed only if it will cause casualties.--'''Bolter21''' (talk) 14:00, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

List guidelines

I think that a 'list guidelines' should be in the page. I am going to add this:

• Terrorist incident is any act of violence designed to cause terror and feature a political objective.
• This list excludes terrorist attacks that failed to be executed.
• Terrorist incidents in this list have at least one casualty.
• Casualties figures in this list are the total casualties of the incident including immediate casualties and later casualties (such as people who succumbed to their wounds long after the attacks occured).
• The casualties listed are the the casualties of the victims, perpetrator casualties are listed seperatly (e.g. (+1 perpetrator) indicate that along the victims of the attack, one perpetrator was also killed/injured).
• Casualty totals may be underestimated or unavailable due to a lack of information. A figure with a plus sign indicates that at least that many people have died (e.g. 10+ indicates that at least 10 people have died) – the actual toll could be considerably higher.

Please help making it better. --Bolter21 10:34, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I do not think this list belongs in the article area readily visible to the readers. Are there other lists that show similar guidelines ? “WarKosign” 16:34, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Generally influenced by this --Bolter21 21:59, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

You're getting casualty confused with fatality. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:21, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Nope, it includes injuries as well. --Bolter21 13:44, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, so someone who "later succumbs" to their injuries doesn't become a "later casualty". She already was. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:07, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Rocket Shooting on Israel in 18 Sept.

So that's the story: A rocket was shot from the Gaza Strip to Sderot. The explosion it self didn't kill or injured someone, it did caused some damage though. Unlike all other rocket attacks on Israel in recent months, who caused no injuries what-so-ever this one exploaded pretty close to a residential area and cause couple of shock victims, including one woman who was evicted after having breast pressure from the shock. Indeed this is a terrorist attack, but should it be listed in the list? I think it should be because often shock victims are counted alongside wounded people but still I am not sure if this is the right thing to do and add it to the list. Any commants? --Bolter21 19:45, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

It should be treated in the same way as all the other rocket attacks - either all of them should be in, or none. The only difference I see is that this one is more recent than the others, but this alone is not a good reason to include it. “WarKosign” 21:21, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't there is a reason to list no casualties attacks - there are just too many. --Bolter21 21:28, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

POV tag

Should be removed, as there is no active discussion about it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Should I add the Price Tag attacks by Israelis?

Many Israeli Price Tag attacks, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Israeli_price_tag_attacks meet the definition added here

Terrorist incident is any act of violence designed to cause terror and feature a political objective. (See Definitions of terrorism.) Terrorist incidents in this list have at least one casualty - This list does not show terrorist attacks which failed to be executed unless the attempt caused casualties. Casualties figures in this list are the total casualties of the incident including immediate casualties and later casualties (such as people who succumbed to their wounds long after the attacks occurred). The casualties listed are the casualties of the victims, perpetrator casualties are listed seperatly (e.g. (+1 perpetrator) indicate that along the victims of the attack, one perpetrator was also killed/injured). Casualty totals may be underestimated or unavailable due to a lack of information. A figure with a plus (+) sign indicates that at least that many people have died (e.g. 10+ indicates that at least 10 people have died) – the actual toll could be considerably higher.

Can I start adding them?Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 20:17, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Edit by Bolter21

Here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_terrorist_incidents,_2015&diff=683298780&oldid=683298323 user Bolter21 changed a reference probably after I had pointed out that there appeared to be two incidents combined into one. The new RS is behind a paywall, so I replaced it. I note that Bolter21 remarked that 'Next time bring this to the talk. I don't add attacks if I don't know if they are terrorist attakcs.' Of course the opinions of an individual are not important, but I note that there is nothing in this list that states that there must be an RS that states that the attack is a terrorist attack.

Terrorist incident is any act of violence designed to cause terror and feature a political objective. (See Definitions of terrorism.) Terrorist incidents in this list have at least one casualty - This list does not show terrorist attacks which failed to be executed unless the attempt caused casualties. Casualties figures in this list are the total casualties of the incident including immediate casualties and later casualties (such as people who succumbed to their wounds long after the attacks occurred). The casualties listed are the casualties of the victims, perpetrator casualties are listed seperatly (e.g. (+1 perpetrator) indicate that along the victims of the attack, one perpetrator was also killed/injured). Casualty totals may be underestimated or unavailable due to a lack of information. A figure with a plus (+) sign indicates that at least that many people have died (e.g. 10+ indicates that at least 10 people have died) – the actual toll could be considerably higher Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 19:06, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

So what do you suggest we should do? Write that "all the incidents in this list were named terrorist attacks by some source"? --Bolter21 19:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

The List Guidelines seem to have been unilaterally inserted by Bolter21 in this edit of 13 September 2015. These guidelines make the current article different from any other linked to in the 'List of Terrorist Incidents by Year' box at the foot of the article, introducing restrictions such as limiting inclusion to incidents in which there are casualties (terrorist incidents aimed, for example, at destroying buildings etc are therefore omitted) and ones carried out for political (as opposed to, for example, religious) motives. The latter restriction introduces a contradiction with the Introduction, which states: "This is a timeline of terrorist incidents which took place in 2015, including attacks by non-state actors for political or other unknown motives." I propose, therefore, that the List Guidelines section is deleted.     ←   ZScarpia   16:32, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

insteed of deleting it, I suggest to modify it. I will temporary remove the definitions. Anyway, immidiatly after adding this I made a converstation in this talk page, it still exists. --Bolter21 18:38, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Why is a set of guidelines needed for the current article when none of the other List of Terrorist Incidents by Year articles has one (as far as I can tell)?     ←   ZScarpia   20:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Just to summarise my point. At present I can add any 'terrorist' incident, and do not need to provide an RS that uses the word terrorist. Price Tag attacks on Palestinians and Israelis meet this definition, so I do not expect any reversion if I add them.Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 06:43, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

The article is subject to the rules about sourcing and neutrality. Not only must sources be provided to justify the inclusion of content, but that content must be worded in such a way as to be balanced in terms of different points of view (not an easy task in the current article - see WP:TERRORIST). Content is also subject to the consensual process.     ←   ZScarpia   09:38, 1 October 2015 (UTC) (with regard to recent price taggings: The Atlantic - David A. Graham - Why It Matters Whether an Attack on Palestinians Is ‘Terrorism’, 1 August 2015; Foreign Policy - Shira Rubin - The New Face of Jewish Terror, 20 August 2015; YNet - Tova Tzimuki - What is the price tag for Jewish terrorists?, 2 August 2015.)

@Johnmcintyre1959: today a man was injured from stone throwing by Palestinians. Do you want me to add this? It is indeed a terrorist attack. I also have over 10 rocket attacks from this year from Gaza to Israel, should I add them? If we wil add minor pricetag attacks and rock/molotov attacks this list will be extremly long especially when the complete majority of them doesn't have casualtise. --Bolter21 21:01, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Provide mainstream reliable sources which call the stone throwing an act of terrorism.     ←   ZScarpia   23:12, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Bolter21 under your list of criteria you could indeed add the stone throwing, as your list does not include the need for an RS that refers to the attack as terrorist. That is exactly the point I am making. I therefore conclude that I can remove any entry that does not have an RS that refers to the incident as terrorist.Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 17:48, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

There are mainstream media who designate attacks of IDF in Gaza as terrorist, other designate killings of Palestinian knife-wealding as terrorist. Do you go by what the media says or by the standard definition of terrorism? Can you explane me what is your motive other then hating Israel and trying to legitimize or reduce attacks against Israelis? Stop being so damn hypocrite cause Maybe 50% of the attacks here doesn't have the word "terrorist attack" when regarded to the attack it self.

I suggest that insteed of waisting your time on ridiculous hypocracy and trying to attack me as if this is my article you can read the article: Definitions of terrorism. All the attacks that were added by me in September meet the consensus of this article. I have a list of over 20 stone attacks from this year that resaulted in injuries, I decided to add only those who had significance such as one that injured a father and a baby or one that killed a man since I think it is stupid that so many minor attacks will be shown while those attack occure everywhere in the world and no one adds them. If you have a problem with this, don't attack me personally as an Israeli. I was the only editer in september to add attacks and I used only my local news network as a guider to attacks and I collect the attacks everyday and search for the best sources to them (My primary sources I aim to use are Reuters, NYT, Washington Post, TheGuardian, BBC, Yahoo News and others). When I can't use then, I use the best I can find. Minor attacks such as stone throwing bearly have source in English and as I said, they don't have enough significanse to be in this list and I will consider adding them only when people like you will add every single price tag attack and it will be ridiculous and misleading to have a list with 20% attacks from Israeli-Palestinian conflict and yet most of them will bearly cuase casualties. My motive is the sake of this list, not the sake of my country, if my motive was the sake of my country I would do what I belive and it is to label Israeli settlements and East Jerusalem under the flag of Israel but I decided to be the least biased and not label them as in Israel. --Bolter21 19:06, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't recognise anything in Bolter21's claim as applying to my posts. I have not attacked anyone, and I am happy that we have now established that any incident on here must have an RS that uses the term terrorist, and that any that do not can be removed, or an RS found.Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 08:05, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

You havent established anything. Accuarding to Reuters, this is not a terrorist attack? --Bolter21 11:31, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

If you want to avoid being blocked or banned, you need to abide by Wikipedia policies, one of the most fundamental of which states that you have to provide reliable sources for content. The Reuters article you give provides no justification for listing the act described as terrorism. Your own personal opinion about it is irrelevant.     ←   ZScarpia   15:14, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Stop being such a smart-backside. This is not my prsonal opinion, this is acuarding to the internatioanl definision(s) of terrorism. No one exept you and mr. john think otherwise. Stop searching for an excuse to delete attacks from Israel because Israeli sources report them and you claim they are not an RS. --Bolter21 17:21, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

• There are no standard definitions of terrorism. In particular, there is not a standard definition of terrorism which applies in Wikipedia.
• Unless you provide sources justifying calling particular attacks terrorism, then you're basing your choices on your own personal opinions (a form of original research).
• I did not say that your Reuters article was not a reliable source, only that it doesn't provide a justification for calling the described attack terrorism. The reason for that is that the article itself doesn't use that term.
• I haven't deleted, or sought to delete, any attack listed so far. My concern is that the policies on sourcing and neutrality are given at least token respect.

    ←   ZScarpia   17:55, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Let me tell you something, almost all the attacks until September and absolutly all the attacks until June were not added by me. I suggest you should read the article Definitions of terrorism and stop accusing me for violations. The consensus about terrorist attacks is based on the internatioanl definitions of terrorism which states that terrorism is a violente act that feature a political objective and aimed against non-combatants - doesn't feature a strategical objective. All the attacks i"ve added meet this criteria. --Bolter21 18:09, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

(Repetition) There is more than one definition of terrorism and they all tend, in some degree, to contradict each other. What constitutes terrorism is notoriously subjective. Whether you think that particular attacks fit the definitions of terrorism given in the article devoted to that subject is irrelevant when it comes to whether it is permissible to include attacks in the current article. Using your own opinion as a basis for inclusion is a form of original research. You need source-based support.     ←   ZScarpia   18:23, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Go and give me one attack which is not a terrorist attack accuarding to your logic. --Bolter21 18:26, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

What exactly are you asking? Do you want me to look at the attacks listed and tell you which I think currently have insufficient source evidence for them being listed. Or are you asking me for my personal opinion of which are or aren't terrorism (or which cannot be neutrally described as terrorism)? If it's the latter, my own personal opinion is just as irrelevant as yours and so there's no point in asking. It's not so much a case of which I think are or are not terrorist attacks as which, based on the sources provided, may justifiably be listed. My 'logic' is based on trying to abide by the Wikipedia policies on sourcing and neutrality, not on selecting a definition of terrorism that I agree with and then forming an opinion on whether particular attacks fit that definition (or of selecting an attack I'd like listed as terrorism and then looking for a definition which fits).     ←   ZScarpia   18:37, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

If and attack meet the criteria of at least ten academic definitions of a terrorist attack wouldn't it be a terrorist attack? You havent suggested that any attack wasn't a terrorist attack but said that in general there is a problem. I ask you, we have a list here, where does this problem implay? --Bolter21 18:53, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

The problems:

• Nature of Wikipedia: Wikipedia represents what reliable sources say, not what contributors think the truth is.
• Nature of Terrorism: Definitions are subjective and highly variable. Some people would exclude attacks on military personnel, others wouldn't. Some people would see acts of terrorism where others would see legitimate acts of resistance. And so on. Good-quality news organisations tend to avoid labelling individual acts or people as terrorism or terrorists because to do so involves making value judgements (see, for example, the style guides for Reuters and the BBC), though they will report that other people, such as politicians, have used those labels. That leads to something of a Catch-22 situation in the current article. Wikipedia policy requires source evidence to justify inserting material. News organisations will be the main source for information about terrorist attacks made in the current year. However, the best quality news organisations avoid using the labels terrorist and terrorism and therefore editors seeking to list attacks in the current article will depend, for justification, on finding good-quality sources which report what outside bodies or people have said or of using poorer quality sources.

    ←   ZScarpia   19:13, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

You still havent said where is the problem. Which attack would you like to remove from this list? --Bolter21 12:38, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

For starters, six of the first seven entries are missing a source that calls the thing a terrorist incident. So those should go. At that rate, many others likely should, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:04, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I haven't looked at any of the incidents listed apart from the couple that I've edited. The "problem" I've been addressing is the approach you've described on this talkpage (which affects what will be added to the article in the future as much as what has been added in the past).     ←   ZScarpia   18:02, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

"Ongoing military conflicts are listed separately"?

That's clearly not true, just by looking at January. The "Part of" column is filled with war and "Details" has many soldiers. One or the other contradictions should go. As should a lot of stuff here, but I'm just going to back away, slowly. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I was just about to ask what the point of that sentence was myself. The most obvious implication is that incidents which are part of one of those on the list of ongoing armed conflicts are omitted, but, as you say, that is clearly not true. Also, it implies that incidents which were part of a conflict which is no longer ongoing may be listed, which doesn't make much sense.     ←   ZScarpia   11:17, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

It is true that list of ongoing conflicts is listed seperatly... Although a better place might be in the "see also" in the botton of the article, this is not harmfull and even good to have in the leading section. It is here for almost 3 months and I don't see the problem with that. --Bolter21 17:46, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I propose that the final sentence of the introduction is deleted and that the List of ongoing armed conflicts is added to the See Also section.     ←   ZScarpia   18:13, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Sounds about right. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:07, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

"Only attacks carried out by non-state actors are listed" is a lie, too. We have a Government of Syria airstrike against alleged terrorists. Not for long. Will clean this up offline by tomorrow later never, paste here. That way, it makes reverting easier, if need be. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I've given up on the plan to clean this mess up. It'd be futile. Everything is terrorism, some say. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:11, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Revert by Bolter21

Ref this. (Undid revision 684058292 by Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) for the next undiscussed move I will report you. If you want to remove an attack discuss it.) No one has to discuss any removal of any object which does not have an RS that uses the word terrorist. It has recently been pointed out to B21 that it is not an individual's opinion that counts, but an RS. Anyone who repeatedly restores material that does not have an RS will obviously have to face the consequences, and should not be making threats of others.Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 17:01, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

First of all, the attack is in the category of "Terrorist attacks"

Second of all, Palestinian stone-throwing was designated as terrorist. --Bolter21 20:08, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Nowhere near good enough. This is just your OR. As has been explained to you, the RS needs to use the word terror. This material will be removed.Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 20:14, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

The word "terror" isn't good enough, either. "Terrorism" or "terrorist". Even scary movies have acts of terror. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:14, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

In August 2012, the United States defined the attacks as "terrorist incidents".[155] See wikipedia page price tag attacks. Therefore using Bolter 21's OR policy I can add any price tag attack here without an RS that uses the term terrorist. Is this really what we want?Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 20:22, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Attacks such as the attack in Duma, obviously, the other five attacks which ended with no casualties listed here, not really. I don't add every single stone attacks from Israel, only the serious ones becuase I know there are stone attacks all over the world and they are not showen plus I don't think such attacks are significant enough to be in the list. If we will list every hate crime the list will be incredibly wrong and misleading since the insignificant attacks are listed only from places that have reported them. I have dozens of attacks featuring the same characturistic of the other price tag attacks, molotov throwing that starts spine burning, people who are injured from stone throwing attacks - the list is endless.. --Bolter21 20:44, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I went nuts years ago, but that doesn't mean consensus here isn't for following the sources, like every other article has to. What I removed were a bunch of entries that didn't mention terrorism, or even terror. At all. Not even from a politician. You can't make up your own standard to list every single shooting or bombing. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:54, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Go one by one and I"ll show you you are wrong in all of them. There was no consensus reached at all and if you"ll continue your edit warring I will report you. You can't remove third of the content without discussing it and having a consensus for each sentence you removed. You may think you are smart becuase you use RS but you are not smart as you think, insteed of researching for achiving your consensus, you just removed dozens of attacks accuarding to the listed source. --Bolter21 00:03, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Here's a better idea. Add sources calling something a terrorist incident to each entry you want to keep in this list of terrorism incidents. It's a simple concept. Why would I want to bicker over every single one, when arguing about the general policy of "not making shit up" is already tedious? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:06, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

You want to delete, you"ll start the argument, I have the sources and they all listed in Definitions of terrorism. You are the one who question them. I suggest you should start a discussion for each attack you want to delete. --Bolter21 00:09, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

No. Every single discussion I'd have boils down to "not in source". If you want to imagine me saying "not in source" sixty or seventy times, go for it. If you have sources, attach them here. If you mean you have general ideas about how terrorism works and you want to apply your interpretation of them to each of these, someone has already explained synthesis to you. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:16, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I will not sit here for hours, you will sit here for hours. Let's start with the attack in Gombe, why isn't it a terrorist attack? --Bolter21 00:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Let's start with telling me where I'm reported. The source for Gombe says "No group has claimed responsibility for the attack." Without knowing the group, how do you know the motive? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:21, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

You're not supposed to complain about people at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard. It's in big letters at the top of the page. Do you want to try again at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:35, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

First of all I need to say, you are asking for source to say attacks are terrorist attacks because you don't trust what you claim is "one-man's-opinion" but you do trust news paper whose words are usually also "one-man's-opinion" and therefore the compilation of opinions contributed by experts in the article Definitions of terrorism should be taken in cosideration of which attack should stay and which shouldn't.

So I searched about the Gombe attack, first I was mislead by IP user who wrote this was made by Boko Haram but it turns out it is not known who made This attack, although it feature the charecturistics of a terrorsit attack it can't be in the list. Attack in Waza, Cameroon. It was made by a terrorist organization whose motives are known: political and religious[1. The attack was aimed at civilians who are non combatants. This attack is a terrorist attack accuarding to: Rhyll Vallis, Max Abrahms, L. Ali Khan, Alex P. Schmid, Jack Gibbs, Louise Richardson, Walter Laqueur, James M. Poland, Bruce Hoffman, David Rodin, Peter Simpson, Boaz Ganor, Gabriel Palmer-Fernandez, Daniel D. Novotny, Carsten Bockstette, James M. Lutz, Brenda Lutz and Tamar Meisels. --Bolter21 11:21, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

A reliable source's claims always trump one editor's opinion, as far as facts go. It's not that I personally trust reporters more, this is just the way Wikipedia works. If any of the people you listed have published something calling this attack a terrorist attack, attach that source and the entry can stay. It's simple stuff.

Saying Boko Haram is a designated terrorist group, it did a thing, therefore a thing is terrorism is, again, synthesis. There is no blanket rule allowing everything designated terrorists do to be designated as terrorism, anymore than everything a philathropist/chemist/racist does is inherently philanthropy/chemistry/racism.

This discussion can't be considered "ongoing" for much longer, if any longer at all. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:25, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't change the fact you have removed attacks with soruces claiming they are terrorist attacks. --Bolter21 13:42, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

If I did, it was an accident. Which ones? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:49, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

To be honest, I didn't even research on all attacks but just looking at three main articles listed and doing a 10-mins research I found out that the 3 were sourced. (2015 Baga massacre, 2015 Arar attack, 2015 Tel Aviv attacks). Every attack in Israel is named by all Hebrew sources with the Hebrew word of terror attack (In Hebrew, the word terror is used only to describe the organizations while there are different words for terrorist and terrorist attacks, therefore I can asure you that every source in Hebrew will describe those attacks as terrorist simply becuase there are no other words to describe them, the word in question is [https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A4%D7%99%D7%92%D7%95%D7%A2 "Pigua"), I really think we should involve more people and maybe contanct with experts. Usually you can find the word (or the words that describe) "Terrorism" in local "patriotic" sources while international sources see the contrevercy that goes around "terrorism". Wikipedia also doesn't describe an organization as terrorist but it says that "countries X, Y and Z recognzie this organization as a terrorist organization". Those incidents were added for a reason and maybe you don't see it, but for someone who live in an enviroment of terrorism I can tell you that many times news papers just don't say the word "terrorist" for 1) prevent contrevercy and 2) sometimes it's obvious. If the term "terrorist" really bothers you and I absoloutly understand why, we might change the article's name to "Attacks directed against civilians and non-combatants" or something like this, I don't see the point in deleting so many attacks, there are over 30 contributers to this and older articles, they are not all lying or WP:ORing. --Bolter21 13:15, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

This revert by Bolter 21

Ref this revert. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_terrorist_incidents,_2015&diff=684307576&oldid=684306283 The RS does not state that the named individual was the attacker, only that he is a suspect. It says that a Palestinian carried out the attack, and was shot dead, but it does not state that the named individual was the perpetrator. This is therefore OR, and removed on those grounds.Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 20:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I can't take you seriously when you continue to accuse me of OR.. I edited and added all the sources needed. --Bolter21 21:02, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Four of the RS were removed, as they did not name the attacker in this incident. They only named another attacker in a different incident. I will check the remaining RS http://www.breakingisraelnews.com/50260/israelis-fear-start-third-intifada-following-series-terror-attacks-jerusalem/#WEOJg3X2AvgDvdu6.97 as I do not know this counts as a blog or an RS news site.Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 21:35, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Reliable news sources rarely have "End of Days" and "Blood Moon" sections. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

• "Hamas media identified the suspected stabber as Fadi Aloon, a resident of the East Jerusalem neighborhood of Issawiya. In a Facebook post from an account attributed to Aloon he expressed his intent to become a martyr (shahid) and entreated God to forgive for his sins." [2] User:Johnmcintyre1959's edits and reverts here are disruptive.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:55, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

E M Gregory. Check the RS that I deleted, they do not contain the name Fadi Aloon. Your comment is disruptive.Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 19:55, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Incidents that should be added

I create this section to point out incidents I personally can't add due to lack of time. So if anyone can, add them by your own.

• attack from Highway 65 near Gan Shmuel
• A Palestinian woman detonated an explosive in an attempted suicide bombing at the interchange here, wounding one 45 -year-old male soldier. She was treated at Hadassah Ein Karem Hospital.
• Taliban attack UK military convoy in Afghan capital Kabul
• 4 or 5 attacks occured in 13 Octover in Israel, Two seperate stabbing attacks in Ra'anana, one resaulted in one injury, second resaulted in 4 injuries, One vehicular attack in Jerusalem, Israel (should have an Israeli flag), killed one and injured more, another shooting occured in Damascus Gate, East Jerusalem (No flag), killed two and injured over 15.
  1, 2. Another attack was in Kiryat Ata but I can't determine and I don't have time to research, if someone reads this, please investigate and add.
• for 3 suicide attacks in Damaturu, Nigeria. Boko Haram is suspected.
• 6 people killed in attack on villages in Uganda], [Allied Democratic Forces|ADF]] is suspected.
• Taliban attacked a millitary base and a mosque. 16 killed
• ISIL detonated bomb in mosque and 7 were killed

--Bolter21 17:48, 14 October 2015 (UTC+2)

I think this material should be removed B21 can easily keep this somewhere else, such as a talk page. Putting it here is close to suggesting that it is fit to go into the article, and thus a subtle way of avoiding checking sources, etc.Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 09:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I am just going to add them myself you know. You don't really know how to research anyway nor do you have a consensus to oppse the listing of over 90% of this list. Out of all of the definitions of terrorism, there is no definition that say that a "terrorist attack is a terrorist attack if a news report say it is" And I don't search for your agreement, I just list the attacks here since I don't have problems adding them --Bolter21 17:32, 14 October 2015 (UTC+2)

Just a reminder that all attacks listed here must meet this criteria. This is a timeline of incidents which took place in 2015 which have been labelled as terrorism. Without an RS using the word terrorism the consensus is that they can be removed.Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 20:12, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

That is the criteria you gave. You only delete attacks related to Israel. Enjoy those articles: List of (non-state) terrorist incidents, Definitions of terrorism--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:45, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

The criteria is on the page itself. I only delete articles that do not meet the criteria.Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 06:58, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out, I didn't noticed ZScarpia has unilaterally changed] the article's lead section to be different then all the other 45+ lists that exist. --Bolter21 (talk to me) 13:39, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

See the "Ongoing military conflicts are listed separately"? section above. As far as I can see, the wording of the Leads of the similar articles varies and are not identical. Under Wikipedia neutrality rules you cannot state that attacks ARE 'terrorist' unless sources agree, therefore under your preferred wording you would have difficulty listing the attacks you've been adding while complying with the neutral point of view requirement. It should be plain to you by now that you can't just bulldoze stuff into the article based on your own personal beliefs on what the facts are, you need source-based justification.     ←   ZScarpia   04:31, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Get a wide consensus here by inviting people from here and also call them from here. When you will achieve a wide consensus, you could then change the 11 years old consensus. Such change should be discussed deeply and also specifically and also the contact with experts should be used. --Bolter21 (talk to me) 17:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

The introduction to the article for 1970, the very first year for which there is a list: "This is a timeline of incidents in 1970 that have been labelled as "terrorism" and are not believed to have been carried out by a government or its forces (see state terrorism and state-sponsored terrorism)."     ←   ZScarpia   22:12, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Was inserted by Asarlaí in 2010. Wasn't followed in January–June 2011, July–December 2011, January–June 2012, July–December 2012, January–June 2013, July–December 2013, 2014 and the general List of (non-state) terrorist incidents, in which the lead section is the same for the last 11 years, 6 years before Asarlaí added the "labelled". --Bolter21 (talk to me) 23:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Well done Asarlaí! You appear to be outnumbered in the meantime, by the way.     ←   ZScarpia   10:27, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Conesnsus is not democratic you know. If you want to change an 11 years old consensus, on a series of articles, who were edited by tens of people, you need to hear the voices of many people and discuss about it. Consensus is not reached via majority. --Bolter21 (talk to me) 15:26, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Bolter 21 The consensus is clear on this page. If you want to broaden the discussion it is up to you to invite others to comment.Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 20:02, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

There is no consensus, there are 2-3 people having an opinion, other has a different opinion so the other two say "ok, well we have a consensus so get lost". There is a whole wikiproject about Terrorism, changing the consensus here regards over 45 articles, where the parent article and the significant ones (since 2011) do use to original 11 years old consensus, while the rest who use a different one, do not follow it, therefore this change regards all 45 articles and might include blaking of years old articles (With your agenda of deleting things right away with no discussion) and should have a wide variaty of opinions and as I said many times, involvment of experts from let's say, Global Terrorism Database. --Bolter21 (talk to me) 20:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

See the comment I made at 04:31, 2 November 2015 above:

• In the "Ongoing military conflicts are listed separately"? section on this talkpage, the last sentence of the Introduction was discussed and agreement gained to delete it.
• You make wild claims about consensus and what the other list articles say. As I said, as far as I can see, the wording of the Leads of the similar articles varies and are not identical. In addition, I showed that the wording of introduction of the 1970 article, the first one listed, uses the same phraseology as you're objecting to. Please provide evidence for your claims about consensus.
• As far as your mission to log details of incidents in the IP conflict goes, using the phrase "labelled as terrorism" in the Introduction actually makes your job easier, not harder. It means that the argument that not all reliable sources call incidents terrorism cannot be used to block the addition of text you're trying to add. Since Haaretz is about the only example of an Israeli English-language source that doesn't freely describe Palestinian acts as terrorism, you should have no difficulty finding sources that justify your additions. If you can't find any, that's a sign that you should probably not be adding incidents to the list. Obviously, the rules of Wikipedia do require that you need source evidence to justify adding material, and if you can't provide it editors are entitled to delete what you've added.

    ←   ZScarpia   12:56, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

This agenda goes back to 1 Jaunary 2004 and also to 17 March 2004. Currently, the parent article, List of (non-state) terrorist incidents --Bolter21 (talk to me) 13:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

You haven't produced evidence that consensus was established in the first place. Even so, consensus can change. Please produce evidence that yours is currently the consensus position. As to your comment, "I can do this allday," the ability to do something and the wisdom of doing something are separate matters.     ←   ZScarpia   14:07, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

This lead section was here for 11 years and it was modified all the time but had the same meaning, all the articles, regarding of their lead section, followed the lead section of the parent article. Changing the lead section here and changing the entire article, will indeed, affect all of the 45+ articles, who for 11 years, were written in the agenda used in this article, therefore, it is a consensus.

Wanna change it? Ask all the people involved in the Terrorism project, hear all the concerns and solve them all. --Bolter21 (talk to me) 15:02, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

"This lead section was here for 11 years and it was modified all the time but had the same meaning, all the articles, regarding of their lead section, followed the lead section of the parent article." Untrue: the wording of the Leads varies; the very first 'yearly' article uses the same phraseology you're objecting to; none of the ones I've see use the peculiar sentence about ongoing military conflicts. Also, you might note the neutrality notice at the top of the parent article. You're claiming consensus; the onus is on you to prove it.     ←   ZScarpia   15:12, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

The NPOV dispute, was acually resolved, it was about changing the name of the article from "List of terrorist attacks" to "List of (non-state) terrorist attacks. The last time someone concerned about the neutrality of the list in regard to it's content was in 2010 and met with no dicsussion acually. --Bolter21 (talk to me) 15:27, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Since you object to the "labelled as terrorism" fomulation, please justify your addition of incidents taking place in the Occupied Territories, that is, areas outside the sovereign territory of Israel. Explain how that is neutral.     ←   ZScarpia   17:53, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I do not object the "labelled as terrorism", I object it as the sole criteria.

Those attakcs are illegally aimed against Civilians/Non-Combatants, perpetrated by an alleged 'terrorist' - feature a political/religious/ideological adjective, not-aproved by the state or rulling party and, were labelled as "terror attack" by a mainstream media (In November, 3 of the 4 incidents' sources used the word "terror attack"). And by the way, if you missed, out of four attacks, two were acually inside the green-line --Bolter21 (talk to me) 23:04, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

• Where did you get your criteria? Are they self-selected?
• Whose law are they illegal under (I'm specifically interested in the attacks carried out on the 'wrong' side of the Green Line).
• How do you know what the motives were?
• The current wording specifies that all incidencts listed ARE terrorism. Do all reliable sources regard the attacks carried out in the Occupied Territories as terrorism or is that just a point of view?

    ←   ZScarpia   10:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

• The criteria is based on the criteria of the parent article: List of (non-state) terrorist incidents, also I use the critrie used by the Global Terrorism Database becuase I can't determine that every single attack everywhere around the world is terrorist so the obvious ones (according to the critrea used there) or those labelled as terrorist attacks.
• The law in the West Bank is the law of the COGAT which are implyed in Judea and Samaria district, and the law of the Palestinian Authority.
• Because the attackers described as terrorists or members of terrorist attacks.
• The Palestinian Authority does not condman the attacks in the West Bank, Jerusalem or Green-Lined Israel, their leaders (Jibril Rajoub among the others) praise them, is that what you mean? --Bolter21 (talk to me) 12:21, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

bOLTER 21 This page is not the place for your personal opinions on what PA leaders do or do not say. Please confine your remarks to the topic. You need an RS for every addition that states that the attack was a terrrorist attack, this is clearly the consensus here.Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 20:30, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

This is not the consensus until it will be the consensus in the parent article. by the way, there you go. --Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:15, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

No it only needs to be the concensus in this article. BTW Awarded credentials by the Government of Israel as a news organization, IMRA provides an extensive digest of media, polls and significant interviews and events. Does this qualify as an RS?Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 08:34, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

So you are saying a website quoting a public figure from a national television broadcast is not RS becasue it is Israeli, I am not going to start talking about Palestinian sources and their reliability. You want to change this article, know that this article is part of a series and youll need to change all the series, we are regarding hundreds of incidents that needs to be rediscussed. --Bolter21 (talk to me) 08:53, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Consensus is only required for the change for this article, it is not necessary to have that consensus for other articles of this type. Again, this is the talk page, please do not discuss your opinions about PA spokespersons on here, when they are not relevant to this discussionJohnmcintyre1959 (talk) 20:33, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

If you paid attention to a single word I said, you would see why I said it. --Bolter21 (talk to me) 22:15, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Totals

Can someone maybe add totals for each month and perhaps a running total? I mean, if someone wants to list how many terrorist attacks there were in say, January, they would have to go trough the entire list counting them all individually and that could be both frustrating and time wasting... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.5.164 (talk) 19:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the agenda but since the list is very very loose since it is almost absolutly based on news reports we can't really determine, also we don't have an agreed term for "terrorist" and most edits (until Septermeber 2015) are based on stadard definitions of terrorism but not on a single one, therefore adding a "total" in each section can be wrong and also misleading. --Bolter21 21:21, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I understand now. thx. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.5.164 (talk) 10:17, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Additions by Bolter 21

See this revert. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_terrorist_incidents,_2015&diff=prev&oldid=685746239 It has been explained that in order to add an incident to this list we require an RS that uses the word terrorist in relation to the perpetrator. The source for this incident does not do so. Therefore without a reliable source that meets the required criteria this incident needs to be removed.Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 19:02, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Suggest: Making numbers of casualties with more then 20 fatalities and underline attacks with over 50?

Examples: 15, 20, 50

--Bolter21 (talk to me) 19:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I think that would make sense. Wykx (talk) 21:15, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Good idea. Useful, succinct, informative.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Location in attacks regarding West Bank

@IRISZOOM: I have an offer. If an attack occures outside a locality, Palestinian or Israel, wouldn't it make sense to label the location as "Mateh Binyamin/Rammallah Governorate, West Bank" for example? --Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:21, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

• That makes sense, specific location info is always useful.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Month section headings adversely affect the list sorting feature

The breakdown of the list by Julian calendar Month is making the list sort-by-column feature break. Let me try an idea here.

The sections by month are somewhat arbitrary--it's just the way it has been done and persisted for some time--the list might also be sub-sectioned by continent, or by nation-state, or by a variety of other factors.

In my view, removing the month section headings from the table, but including the full date (Month day) of each incident in the Date column, would not lose any information currently in the article, but would allow sortability-by-column to work across the entire year. What do others think about this? N2e (talk) 13:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

list too long

There needs to be a way to easily access the dozen biggest incidents out of this too-long list...-71.174.188.32 (talk) 21:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

List is sortable. you can sort by casualties. --Bolter21 (talk to me) 19:58, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

For those who use Javascript, anyway. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:46, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

War in Donbass

Why in the world the conflict in Ukraine is labelled as terrorism (and only the civilian casualty of one side are counted)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.73.15.28 (talk) 10:11, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Because this list is irreparably doomed to suck. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I was not the one to add those attacks, nor did I ever had a look at them, but it seems that American ambassador in Ukraine do see Russian actions in Ukraine as terror (source) and the governement of Ukraine define their struggle against the pro-Russian factions as an "anti-terror" struggle (source). I guess these attacks were put here for a reason. The Global Terrorism Database also lists incidents from Ukraine and lots of them (source). Out of the five attacks I took a sneaky look at, at least three had a desigantion from the Ukranian government as terrorist attacks, for the rest it seems that a short search on the internet will show simmilar designations from Ukranian sources. As it seems, all the attacks I saw also follow the criteria given by Wikipedia's parent article for all the lists (source). --Bolter21 (talk to me) 20:14, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Both sources seem to be inclined to call all military actions of the rebels as terrorist attacks, including the Siege of Donetsk Airport, which frankly is disingenuous. The only attack that actually did not involve an attack of one military force on another seems to be the Kharkov bombing, everything else should definitely fall under a military operation, not terrorism --2604:6000:6443:1400:D1B2:C984:E18B:6A26 (talk) 22:51, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Casualties figure, with perpetrators or not?

So, I first made the devid between victims and perpetrators when regarding to casualties, since I thought it might be misleading cause people may miss the fact the 1 dead is acually the perpetrator, also it sometimes may cause people to think "oh, 10 people died in this attack made by X" but acually it was eight and there were two suicide bombers, which is something we obviously don't want to happen. The problem is, the (+1 perpetrator) which I"ve added still asthetically rapes my eyes and I don't want to change it to somthing shorter like (+1 terrorist) or (+1 attacker) becuase it still annoying in my eyes, also becuase the numbers are in the right side of the column.

There are four options I can think about:

• Leave it like this
• Bring it back to the origninal method, when perpetrators were included along with victims
• Don't list the perpetrators in the casualties but write their death/injuries in the details
• Make another column for perpetrators

Opinions? This is very important to me and for the article and now when the article has more then 2-3 casual editors I think I don't need to be bold--Bolter21 (talk to me) 22:53, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Someone? --Bolter21 (talk to me) 08:23, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Jerusalem gay pride parade attack

I think that the Jerusalem gay pride parade attack should be removed from this list. It appears prominently in 3 other lists, more relevant to that topic. It wasn't an act of terrorism, but rather a homophobic hate crime. Shilonite 08:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by שילוני (talk • contribs)

According the lists criteria that can be found in ther parent article, this attack follow the critrea. It is not aproved by the authority of Israel, it is illegally aimed against people or property and it furthers religious motives. --Bolter21 (talk to me) 15:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Colorado attack a terrorist attack?

The motives are not known, since it's the US, we can't say for sure this has a political/national/religious/ideological or other motive until we will know it. --Bolter21 (talk to me) 09:36, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Of course it's political. Having said that, let's wait till there are sources. Volunteer Marek  22:27, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Mayor of Colorado springs is calling it "domestic terrorism". --previously unsigned comment by User:88.144.244.250 at 15:51, 29 November 2015‎

Sources for anyone interested in adding it (he says "appears to be domestic terrorism")

• http://abcnews.go.com/US/planned-parenthood-standoff-appears-domestic-terrorism-colorado-springs/story?id=35471366 (imported from 2015 Colorado Springs shooting article)
• Mike Huckabee, a candidate for the Republicans in the next US election http://www.kcci.com/politics/huckabee-planned-parenthood-shooting-is-domestic-terrorism/36704644

I don't see this as enough to add it. I don't think this counts as "official sources referring to it as a case of domestic terrorism" - the keyword "appears" excludes it from that. I personally want to see it added because it fits American definitions of terrorism (and America is where it occurred). But previous conventions for these articles say that a source must refer to it as such. I think that's a good practice because it makes criteria for inclusion more clear-cut. --BurritoBazooka (talk) 16:26, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Until the FBI, Homeland Security, and the BATF call it domestic terrorism, it shouldn't be listed here as such. Anything else is personal opinion (from the mayor) and political posturing (from NARAL and Huckabee). Seems to be borderline WP:FRINGE to me until it's official. Agenda pushers at the 2015 Colorado Springs shooting article are trying very hard to make it Wiki-official as terrorism, though. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:32, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• Wait for groups like the FBI, Homeland security, ATF to make statements. -- Callinus (talk) 16:59, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm pro-life, but objectively, this should be identified as terrorism. Callinus, we should not wait for official government pronouncements, because that makes the encyclopedia just an extension of potential government propaganda. It's well known that the Clinton administration had a policy of not identifying anything as terrorism. We should cite sources, but these should be sourcing objective criteria, not conclusions. 96.234.148.16 (talk) 14:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Shooting in San Bernardino - Should we add it?

Huge Shooting in south California 3 suspects and over 12 people killed and over 20 people injured. Suspects on the run. If anyone has more info on this please say or add it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calluma227 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Since it's the US, no. The Colorado attack was confirmed later, so let's wait with this one, just to have a consensus until it will have proper sources or at least a suspected motive. --Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:02, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Why would the fact that it's in the US have a bearing on whether it should be added? --DRE (talk) 13:05, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

The exclusion of this terrorist incident from this list appears to be political agenda speaking. Objectively, it fits the description very well. It's two people who are doing the shooting! How could two people go nuts at the same time? They planned this. NY Post is calling it "Terror". Drudge headlines: JIHAD COMES TO CALI... WORE GOPRO CAMERAS DURING MASSACRE... Dropped baby off at grandma's... Suspicious Neighbor Didn't Report -- Fear Of Being Called RACIST! Saw Half-Dozen Middle Eastern Men Leaving Apartment... RECENTLY TRAVELED TO SAUDI ARABIA... VikingExplorer (talk) 13:41, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Calm down you both, I made the statement that we don't need to add the attack yet about a few hours after it was made. Now we know for sure, it has a place. No political agenda or any kind of that things. I said "until it will have proper sources or at least a suspected motive." and now we have it. --Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Under Construction?

Is the template still needed? This article seems to be undergoing the typical additions and updates as new incidents occur and new information becomes available, but nothing out-of-the-ordinary. DRE (talk) 20:55, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on List of terrorist incidents, January–June 2015. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150107181544/http://www.businessweek.com:80/news/2015-01-05/saudi-general-two-guards-killed-in-attack-near-iraqi-border to http://www.businessweek.com/news/2015-01-05/saudi-general-two-guards-killed-in-attack-near-iraqi-border
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150709111609/http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/afghan-official-offers-details-years-eve-deaths-27999599 to http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/afghan-official-offers-details-years-eve-deaths-27999599

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:23, 26 February 2016 (UTC)