Jump to content

Talk:List of terrorist incidents in January–June 2013

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Constant reverts and overly long descriptions

[edit]

In the last few days I have changed the descriptions for the first two terrorist incidents in the article done by User:Lihaas, yet they keep getting reverted back. To avoid any further stress, let's discuss it here - everyone can take a look at the revision history of the article and compare. The last serious discussion anyone has had on criteria for inclusion and how the inclusion should be phrased was way back in 2011, but I think it should be pretty clear to everyone editing this article on a regular basis by now, especially Lihaas. This is simply a list of incidents, not a detailed description of ~8-10 lines of text for every attack on the globe. You included a ton of really unnecessary information in both the Pakistani attacks, including names of streets and all sorts of information which does not have a place in this article - you are more than welcome to contribute to one of the Pakistani insurgency\terrorism articles, but this is purely a list. With that in mind, please try to keep it short, precise and simple, and with as few red links not directly linked to terrorism as possible. I have reverted your edits YET AGAIN, feel free to add or play with them but keep them in a similar length. If you go back to previous years, you might notice that VERY significant attacks have less written for them (and a link to a WP article) than what you wrote about 2 somewhat insignificant incidents in Pakistan. Skycycle (talk) 00:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And you just did it again - please stop reverting the article and read what I said above. There is no excuse for the extreme length of your descriptions, as well as the amount of irrelevant information. In addition, take care to notice that every time you revert, you lose the Syria bombing that I added to the list about 30 minutes ago. Skycycle (talk) 00:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and added the missing information to the first article, now it includes all the stuff you added, minus what we clearly DO NOT need - like the name of the police inspector reporting the attack, or the precise intersection where it happened. Also, it surprises me that you seem to have been around for a while, yet kept including a red link to an article that actually exists - Muttahida Qaumi Movement. Fixed that as well. Skycycle (talk) 00:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) 1. Instead of edit warring to WP:WRONGVERSION kinndly discuss issues, where disputes should be taken (ie- talk page)
2. Who detemrmines what is "long enough", your personal view doesnt detemine that. Hence discuss disputes instead of warring
3. You are inserting redundancies on X deaths when the number is already listed in the box beside the prose.
4. You are repeatedly showing WP:OWNership tendencies with the insertion against WP:REDLINK that i twice outlined.
And do NOT remove a tag until the dispue it resolved per WP:IDONTLIKEIT. This is NOT your personal webpage to design
And since you don't speak a non-Latin language (i presume_), spellings change in the latin version as in MQM.Lihaas (talk) 01:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with 3 and 4, although we have been mentioning the casualties for a long time and noone seems to mind. Anyway, it only takes up a few extra symbols, so it's not the major obstacle we are facing here. I do speak (a few) non-Latin languages fluently, but thank you for noting that. Other than that, there's nothing more I can really add to the discussion - I told you your edits are EXTREMELY long compared to the 2012/2011/earlier articles and their average length. This is a list - not a detailed list, not a description, not a day-by-day analysis of every single bomb that goes off in Karachi. I follow several conflict zones around the world with great interest, but I do not add everything I want to, and include irrelevant details such as police officers' names, streets and boulevards and etc. In fact, there were several attacks on Jan 1 and 2 in Iraq that killed between 10-14 people each of these days, but I did not add them since they were not that significant, violence is an everyday occurrence in parts of Iraq and we have to concentrate on major attacks unless we want to turn the article into something which it isn't supposed to be. If you want to write detailed descriptions of accidents such as this, please include them in another article - one of the Pakistani insurgency ones, for example. Skycycle (talk) 01:24, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Major" is vague. WHat constitues the criteria to be called major? Number of deaths? Thats wong because you could have 1 casualty thats notable.
It dint really stick cause this was my bone of contention last year too with the redundancy (but i cagave up argument). Agreed on cop's name, but not on title (which is notable) and we can abbreviate. Also other articles standalone are nto notable on its self. Thse issue has to give context, its not a weblog listing here. Its an encyclpaedia and readers need to knowLihaas (talk) 03:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Follow-up

We could merge both Pakistan's attacks on 1 Jan per the 3 Jan Iraq attacks? + Syria's petrol station bombing outside Damascus was reported as an airstrike first.Lihaas (talk) 01:11, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merging doesn't make a lot of sense to me, would just confuse things and take the same amount of space - and the two attacks are not necessarily connected in any way. The airstrike you mentioned occurred at a different petrol station in Damascus on January 2 (Al Jazeera), and is not listed in the article - today's incident was a car bombing. Skycycle (talk) 01:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okey, but sould add that tooLihaas (talk) 01:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, we should not, since it's a government airstrike as part of the ongoing civil war. How and why it hit the petrol station is another question, but it is not a terrorist incident. Skycycle (talk) 01:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, please do not remove the casualty tolls until we have reached a conclusive decision in the discussion above. I believe they are necessary since it's a lot harder to convey a short and simple sentence in the description without them - i.e. I will have to write just 'car bomb at petrol station' and end up with some sort of short radio-like transmission style which is wildly unsuitable for an encyclopedic entry. Also, do not remove the 'terrorism' marker - the days when people were assuming Assad's regime is orchestrating bombings are long gone - terrorist groups are operating within the country (and on a wide reach too), and quite frankly, the government is too busy surviving to bother with stuff like that any longer. Still not known which group is behind this attack, but that will probably take a while to establish, if ever. Skycycle (talk) 01:30, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We do list state attacks, but if youre citing it as part of he ongoing civil wa, then even the oher Syria incident should not be here. In adddition please do NOT remove the content until w have reached a conclusisive decision. Again you do NOT OWN the page to have it to YOUR version. You are more than 3RR now! So now you want to deem what is long enough and what is short enough? Sorry it doesnt work like that. Also please CITE a source that says it is a non-state atacs not your personal view/synthesis.Lihaas (talk) 01:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you even notivce your ownshership issues? You expect every of the three issues to be right your way an thats the way it should stay (not to mention removing the tag): shorten the caption (and then lenghten it), inserting the tick (and ENVGAR). You need to learn to discuss, compromiseLihaas (talk) 01:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, let's tone it down a bit then. I removed the non-state attack, you are correct that I have no proof of this NOT being an attack orchestrated by the regime itself. It's just my personal opinion that this was the case, but then again WP is not the place for personal opinions, so agreed. Skycycle (talk) 03:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okey, the 1 issue resolved (quite easily), thanks for that.
Now, what criteria to be used to determine thelength? 1. I think the mention of the number ocf casualties when the same as the box on the right is unnecessarily rednundant. In plaes like the Iraq update it worhtwhile though. Also I disagree with what yu say is "unnecessary detail" because certain context as in the Pak. one is vital.Lihaas (talk) 03:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incidents

[1][2][3][4][5][6]Lihaas (talk) 01:11, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New discussion on the topic above

[edit]

Since a month passed and only the two of us are talking this over, I notified most of the people who were active on the talk page in the last few years via their talk pages. Since User:Lihaas, for some reason, decided that it's okay to assume he was right, and reverted back to the overly-long description of the first 2 attacks of the year, I decided it's time to finally settle this, before I refer the whole issue to the Incident noticeboard... so I don't have to constantly go back and fix grammar mistakes, spelling errors, missing links to wikipedia articles, links that are written wrong (but otherwise an article DOES exist), police officers' and street names with no relevance to the attack itself, as well as a few others here and there. For the time being, I very lightly trimmed his last edits, pending a further discussion here. Of course, all of it is clearly visible through the edit history, if anyone would like to take a closer look. To everyone, please refrain from changing anything major until a consensus is reached, and only after we have had other people (potentially even an admin) weigh in on this debate. I believe it has been already explained what the scope of the article is/should be, what constitutes a major attack and what kind of attacks should be included, what the entries themselves should constitute of, and why this is NOT a list of every single attack that happens around the globe. Since that doesn't appear to be the case with everyone though, let's hear some new voices. Please note the previous discussion from 2012 over here and especially the one here and here. Thanks! Skycycle (talk) 01:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problems listed before still apply.
I doubt that listing them here will achieve anything but I will give it a try:
  1. There is no agreed neutral definition of terrorism so calling these incidents terrorism does not meet the Neutral Point of View. The page title needs to change.
  2. The people who use the word terrorism don't want there to be an agreed, neutral definition of terrorism because that definition could be used to label them as terrorists. Hence their fondness for including clauses that exclude themselves by definition - like it isn't terrorism if a state does it (unless it is Iran). This is why there will never be an international agreed definition.
  3. If we come up with our own definition of terrorism then that is ORIGINAL RESEARCH. We can however come up with inclusion criteria and then rename the page to reflect those criteria - "Political violence in 2012" or something.
  4. The criterion proposed last year for including an incident was that someone, somewhere has called the incident terrorism. The problem with this is that reliable sources that cover these incidents, like the BBC, don't use the word terrorism so this criterion would mean we are dependent on unreliable sources for what is included - like Joe Biden's claim that Wikileaks are terrorists. This criterion was little used in practice.
  5. Including only acts by Non-state groups but excluding acts by (for instance) the Israeli and US governments is a source of bias in this list since their acts are part of the same ongoing struggle as the incidents listed and puts UNDUE emphasis on the acts that are included.
  6. Excluding criminal attacks, like those by drug gangs in Mexico and Columbia, again puts UNDUE weight on the acts by political groups. People are just as dead afterwords.
filceolaire (talk) 08:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed on all of these issues on my side, although what I wanted to bring to attention is to at least for the time being define a certain length and description priority when listing incidents. For instance, keeping it reasonably short (within 4 or 5 or 6 lines maybe?) since if it's a significant attack, the description page should link to the article about it, like is being done now. Another thing is not including information which is irrelevant, such as police officers and local officials' names, street names (unless it's a well known place), stuff like that. Lihaas pointed out that mentioning the number of dead and sometimes injured in the description is wasteful, to which I somewhat agree, although it would be way harder to structure a proper description without just mentioning it, and to be honest, I don't think it matters that much to repeat it for the sake of clarity and accessibility. Last, but not least, grammar + punctuation + proper links to other articles + wording + spelling are ALL things which should be considered a must, and there should be no need for other editors to go back and constantly trim and correct other people's edits. A certain level of English is required, IMO, if you want to edit and contribute properly. These are the pressing problems that I notice, and would like to hear someone else's opinion of. Skycycle (talk) 01:07, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More incidents

[edit]

[7][][8][9][10][](Lihaas (talk) 15:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)).[reply]

  • Will add the first one in a bit, definitely meets notability standards. Skip on the second one though, just a part of ongoing US drone operations in the area, and hence, better placed in a different article. Thanks for the info! Skycycle (talk) 22:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[11][12][13][14][15]

Figures quoted here are very different

[edit]

I checked out this site http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/ The events quoted and the numbers in what I think are the same operation are widely different.

I suspect our list is not very good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BernardZ (talk • contribs) 06:05, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Which operation are you referring to in particular? I assume you meant a concrete terrorist incident, but either way - this website is neither journalistic, nor neutral - and DEFINITELY not suitable for a source on this article. Skycycle (talk) 23:10, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What I am saying is there is much lacking in our website and a note should be put up on the page to say so.

BernardZ (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:02, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the amount of terrorist activity worldwide, there will always be something missing. WP is an encyclopedia, not an exhaustive comprehensive database, so can you specify what is missing in particular. The website you mentioned cannot possibly be used as a source IMO. Skycycle (talk) 00:53, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If what you say is true then the list presented here is incomplete. We should say so on the front. BernardZ (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:18, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Constant edits by IP

[edit]

I have now had to twice revert the edits of User 173.238.2.246, who for some reason believes it is very important that we allow half a screen for information on the Boston bombing + a separate equally long and unnecessary (here) entry on the shooting of an MIT officer which is already part of the Boston attacks aftermath and is included in the WP article for that attack. I have reverted back to the original version and am posting this here to have it as a record in case of future edits of the kind. I will also post this to his talk page, which is currently empty. Once more - it's a good idea to keep the edits as short and precise as possible, as any detailed information warrants a separate article for an attack, which in all probability exists and can just be linked here, instead of devoting half a screen to describing the attack in detail. In addition, I would recommend to our anonymous friend to keep a close eye on how tables work, since he has broken them twice in the process of changing the Boston attack entries. Of course, I can elaborate on all above, if the need arises - it's just that I think it's really obvious and if it happens again, it will be reported. Skycycle (talk) 16:06, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • After posting this yesterday AND notifying the user on his (newly created) talk page, the revert was done once more today, with the curious description "You give no reason for deleting terrorist incidents , I am in no mood to talk to you. This is a free editing site and I am posting correct incidents". I have once more fixed the two Boston entries into one and corrected the broken table, this time keeping the two Pakistani attacks from the last few days and merging them into one entry. I will immediately report the user's activity - hopefully instead of giving ridiculous statements like the one above he or she will actually read what is suggested and try and work it out. Wikipedia might be a free encyclopedia, but that doesn't mean anyone can do anything all the time. Skycycle (talk) 13:39, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in List of terrorist incidents, January–June 2013

[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of terrorist incidents, January–June 2013's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "BBC":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 07:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 9 external links on List of terrorist incidents, January–June 2013. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 17:18, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of terrorist incidents, January–June 2013. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 09:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Global terrorism database

[edit]

https://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/search/Results.aspx?start_month=0&end_month=12&start_year=2013&end_year=2013&start_day=0&end_day=31

RfC: terrorist incidents list criteria

[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of terrorist incidents#RfC: List criteria. – Levivich 17:55, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_January–June_2013&oldid=1260980051"