Talk:List of terrorist incidents in August 2019

2019 Bangkok bombings

In what way was this event not terrorism? Even if the perpetrators are belligerents in the South Thailand insurgency, Bangkok is a long way from there. Jim Michael (talk) 08:06, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

In the way that the only source provided for this doesn't call it terrorism - and per WP:V and WP:SYNTH we don't get to decide what is and is not terrorism. See also MOS:TERRORIST for additional clarification of why this is an issue. Furthermore, VOA is not a reliable news source for anything. I'd not trust them with the weather; I'd certainly not trust them to neutrally identify a terrorist incident. Simonm223 (talk) 12:51, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Definition

So, what does it take to decide what is and isn't terrorism? One man's opinion as to what is written or interpreted? Kgriff2002 (talk) 13:55, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

A recent, narrower interpretation of this by a small number of editors has resulted in there being only 2 incidents on this article & only 1 in the second half of List of terrorist incidents in July 2019. Jim Michael (talk) 14:04, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

The narrower interpretation is just the enforcement of WP:V, MOS:TERRORIST, WP:BLPCRIME and other related policies and guidelines. These "recent editors" who found this particular WP:WALLEDGARDEN haven't opposed the inclusion of any incident that is supported by WP:RS unambiguously stating the incident was a terrorist incident. Simonm223 (talk) 15:05, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Why do you think it's a walled garden? Entries on lists such as this one include links to articles - including to articles about the incidents in cases in which they have their own articles. Those articles about the incidents also have links in them to other WP articles. Jim Michael (talk) 04:53, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I would go for "if enough RS say it was a terrorist incident so can we".Slatersteven (talk) 15:18, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

How many times in a news article does it have to mention that it is a terroristic action or do 100 people have to die before it is declared by the "small number of editors."Kgriff2002 (talk) 19:50, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

The death toll isn't relevant to whether or not an incident is included here. Jim Michael (talk) 04:53, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Nor is the death toll a criterion that the "small number of editors" are concerned about for inclusion. If 0 people die and RSes call it unambiguously terrorism, it can be included, if 100,000 people die and no source calls it terrorism, it stays off the list. Simonm223 (talk) 13:47, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism, University of Maryland lists the Taliban as a terrorism organization. They are one of the foremost authorities for the study of terrorism in the world. The "narrow" group of editors know more than they do?Kgriff2002 (talk) 15:19, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

No, you're missing the point. Is it a terrorist action when a Taliban member drives a car? When he goes to the bathroom? This isn't a list of groups the United States has identified as terrorist. This is a list of terrorist incidents. To jump from one to the other is WP:SYNTH. Furthermore, should the international Wikipedia be depending on the United States to define terrorism? Would that be neutral? Simonm223 (talk) 16:26, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

You know that's a ridiculous comparison. We're discussing whether or not to include attacks. No-one's suggesting including any activity of any type by any member of the Taliban - or any other terrorist group for that matter. Jim Michael (talk) 14:43, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

My point is that the boundaries are unclear. The Taliban claims to be the rightful government of Afghanistan. That means there's a case that any military action they undertake is not at all terrorist. It's military. Simonm223 (talk) 15:15, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

How about their attacks against unarmed civilians? They can't be regarded as legitimate military actions. Jim Michael (talk) 13:15, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

But are they terrorism or war crimes? Let's be clear, I'm not stanning for these guys. But this is why WP:RS is important and relevant. A lot of sources don't unambiguously call their actions terrorism for a reason; and neither should we. If a RS says that something the Taliban does is terrorism, that's fine, so can we. If it doesn't, there is too much ambiguity about how to categorize their crimes and suspected crimes to just say, "this is terrorism just because they did it." Simonm223 (talk) 13:24, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

2019 El Paso shooting

Which RS gave called this a terrorist attack?Slatersteven (talk) 15:20, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I'll take this as none, so its OR to include it.Slatersteven (talk) 09:50, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

BBC: "We're treating this as a domestic terrorist case," John Bash, the US Attorney for the Western District of Texas, told a news conference on Sunday. – Levivich 14:35, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

RfC: terrorist incidents list criteria

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of terrorist incidents#RfC: List criteria. – Levivich 18:02, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Case in point

I want to draw attention to the entry I removed [1] here. This is why it's so important that we use WP:RS to describe terrorism rather than just saying, well it quacks like a duck, so... Specifically, while the subject shouted religious slogans and attacked people at random, the ref makes it clear that he was known to the authorities for a history of mental illness, had no known connections to terrorist groups, and that this incident is not being treated as terrorism. So while it may meet random criteria for "terrorism" the provided citation actually explicitly says it's not terrorism. And under MOS:TERRORIST we're not allowed to randomly accuse BLPs of being terrorists. Furthermore, per WP:BLPCRIME we shouldn't be commenting on something routine such as a crime in which a mentally ill person stabs some people unless that incident demonstrates lasting significance and furthermore, unless he's otherwise notable, we should not be naming a suspect until he's stood trial. Simonm223 (talk) 17:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

@Nate Hooper: Please refrain from edit-warring this back in. "Crimes in which the subject is purported to have uttered religious slogans," is not a valid definition of terrorism and the source you included explicitly states that it is not being investigated as a terrorist event. Simonm223 (talk) 12:39, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Sydney Stabbing

Guy stabbed people and shouted Allahu Ackbar and had terrorist literature on his computer. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pYYAdLzlcg The police give a press release in which they don't state one way or the other if it's terrorism - Of course they do, they do this every time there is an Islamic terror attack, no matter how strong the evidence is, because they don't want the public to react before they are 100% sure. Surely we can use common sense here. It was clearly Islamic terrorism. Let's vote: I vote to include it. Nate Hooper (talk) 03:36, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

It's not a vote and Wikipedia is not a democracy. The source provided explicitly says that the incident is not being investigated as terrorism. Simonm223 (talk) 16:16, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Okay, that's fine, but just know that NO terrorist incident is treated as such in Australia until a court says so, which may take many months. The police act very differently here than in other countries. But I get it, you gotta make claims in line with certain wiki protocols. I just think you are following the letter of the wiki rules, but not the spirit. But I do concede that you're only doing what you think is best, so even though I disagree, I won't edit it again. Nate Hooper (talk) 04:39, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

That's fine; Wikipedia has specific guidance at WP:TOOSOON and WP:BLPCRIME that cover these matters. Should a court call it terrorism later, it can be added at that time. Remember we're building an encyclopedia and not a newspaper; there's no need for us to rush to judgment. Simonm223 (talk) 11:50, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Gaza Suicide Bombing

How is an ISIS-affiliated Muslim terrorist group targeting Hamas with a suicide bomber part of the "Israel-Gaza conflict," as it is currently listed? Israel has nothing to do with that.