Talk:List of terrorist incidents in April 2017

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList

Crime and Criminal Biography: Terrorism

	This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
	This redirect is supported by the Terrorism task force.

Years

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Years, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Years on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YearsWikipedia:WikiProject YearsTemplate:WikiProject YearsYears

To be included on this stand-alone list, each entry should meet the following list criteria (see discussion):

The incident is notable
The incident has a corresponding stand-alone Wikipedia article
The consensus of reliable sources describe the incident as "terrorism"

Borussia Dortmund

A number of users keep adding this event, but the sources they give all say that officials are not calling this a terrorist event (yet).

"'No element' of the explosion points toward an organised terror attack." Daily Mail (which is almost never an RS)
"Police have so far found no evidence of a terrorist connection, the German Press Agency (DPA) is reporting." Telegraph

Please wait until there is confirmation by officials. WP:HOLDYOURHORSES. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:06, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit notice?

Do we need an edit notice to remind users that all entries must be (1) accompanied by a reliable source and (2) that the sources must label the event as terrorism? I see too many WP:OR entries here. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:38, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1) Yes and 2) Yes. So, added. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN: Thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) 18:36, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kristijh: Can you please explain why you reverted me? EvergreenFir (talk) 23:48, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Ruru31500 since no one seems to be engaging in discussion. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:51, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hezdor: I don't see any mention of terrorism in the sources for the Mexican Cartel killings on April 13. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JBergsma1: The taliban is a militant group/insurgency that uses terrorist tactics sometimes. But the source doesn't call the attack terrorism. Per the edit notice made by NeilN, the source must call it terrorism. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:41, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. But the Taliban is considered a terrorist group by many countries. Shouldn't any sort of attacks committed by terrorist groups like the Taliban considered to be terrorism? In this case a military base was attacked. This could've been considered as an act of guerilla-warfare rather than an act of terrorism so I understand your point. But there are other attacks of the taliban on the list where the source refering to the incident doesn't mention terrorism as well. For example the 10 January 2017 Afghanistan bombings on the list of terrorist incidents.JBergsma1 (talk) 17:24, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JBergsma1: I understand where your coming from, but I think that we shouldn't be listing entries just because they're done by a group that has used terrorist tactics in the past. In the Taliban's case, this look more like warfare to me. If we have entries for the Taliban or isil without them being called terrorism, they should be removed. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:55, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@EvergreenFir: I understand the concept of confirmation of terrorism in sources that are being used for this list, but it has become more difficult for regions where attacks happen on a daily basis as a part of a conflict. Sometimes sources don't mention terrorism because of the frequent amount of attacks. You don't see or hear the Afghan government investigate every incident to confirm whether it's terrorism or not. It's an unstable region where terrorism is a term for the obvious. That might be a reason why sources don't use the term 'terrorism' for attacks in that region so often. It has become a sort of routine and it takes only common sense to understand it.JBergsma1 (talk) 23:27, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Original Research

The amount of original research on this article is quite ridiculous. Sources need to proclaim an event as terrorism. If not, it does not belong on this list. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:27, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. But the Taliban is considered a terrorist group by many countries. Shouldn't any sort of attacks committed by terrorist groups like the Taliban considered to be terrorism? In this case a military base was attacked. This could've been considered as an act of guerilla-warfare rather than an act of terrorism so I understand your point. But there are other attacks of the taliban on the list where the source refering to the incident doesn't mention terrorism as well. For example the 10 January 2017 Afghanistan bombings on the list of terrorist incidents.JBergsma1 (talk) 17:24, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Skycycle: I understand I am a bit new to this page, but I still object to inclusion of events that sources do not explicitly state are terrorism. The edit notice by NeilN says the same. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:39, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@EvergreenFir: There have been issues for years now - people with poor English adding incidents, non-terror incidents addent, people with agendas adding stuff (e.g. Northern Ireland, Israel/Palestine), sources being done just with ref - ref and no other info, and many others. I saw you reverted my latest addition now, and I undid that with an explanation - some news sources do not specifically mention terrorism, so that is a bit of a problematic rule IMO. We have included the Naxalite insurgency here for years, the Indian government considers them terrorists, and their modus operandi definitely fits the description as well. Should we painstakingly look for sources that specifically mention the word terrorism, because that seems counter-productive for me. I would focus on auto-protection, building a group of people with knowledge on the subject (we already have quite a few), and maintaining quality. Please do not revert again, and rather discuss here :) Skycycle (talk) 19:41, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For this conflict there is no doubtIMO. Some news outlets prefer militants to terrorists, others even use rebels. I do not think we should lean back on vocabulary in this case, but as far as the Naxalite conflict is considered, that definitely fits the bill IMO. I am personally more concerned about people adding an unnecessary amount of smaller incidents - Israel for example, or Northern Ireland - when we are missing so many others. But agreed, we should have a larger discussion, come up with some rules that work for everyone and are fair, and then figure out auto-protect. Also, welcome to the page! Skycycle (talk) 19:43, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: terrorist incidents list criteria

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of terrorist incidents#RfC: List criteria. – Levivich 18:00, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]