Talk:List of terrorist incidents in January 2017

Number of page views in the past 30 days

References

I notice that whoever is adding incidents is doing poor references. We really should use the full cite web tag, the way it is being done right now doesn't really help. Skycycle (talk) 13:59, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

<ref> {{cite web |url= |title= |publisher= |date= |access-date= }} </ref> - shortest version I would use

I have begun fixing some of them, a few other small things I want to mention - let's not add suspected perpetrators unless it's specifically mentioned somewhere. Several examples of this - the Burkina Faso attack was attributed to Boko Haram, despite no presence in the country - previous attacks there were claimed by AQIM/Al-Mourabitoun (removed this attack since). The attack in Naples is not a part of the wave in terror in Europe, and today's attack in Jableh, Syria has not been proved to be IS-organized. So be careful, leave stuff empty if no information or claim of responsibility is given, no need to rush. Skycycle (talk) 14:06, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

This keeps happening - SHALL I WRITE IN CAPS THAT YOU NEED TO INCLUDE PROPER REFERENCES? I will begin the process to request protected status for this page otherwise, we are seeing a lot of quick edits and mistakes done by recently-registered accounts. Skycycle (talk) 17:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I really couldn't agree more (see my below statement). I requested semi-protection for this page and it's been enacted; not sure how effective it's going to be but it's a start at least. st170e 23:34, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the semi-protection. I have just finished fixing all the references so far, deleting doubles, adding languages, and cutting down on unnecessary information. Hope that things slow down a bit with the added protection, and people at least take the time to look here and copy/paste what is already provided, and fill it out. Skycycle (talk) 21:35, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately semi-protection doesn't work fully, a few users continue to add simple references. I left talk page messages, let's see where it goes. Skycycle (talk) 00:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Too quick with adding info on terrorist attacks

I would urge all editors to this page to stop rushing to add information to the article on recent events until things become much clearer. I'm using the shooting at the Florida airport as the example. It is not yet known if this was a terrorist attack or just simply 'an attack'. You need to add sources that show that it's being treated as such, rather than rushing to add information to the page because it doesn't benefit anybody. It was described that this was a 'lone wolf attack' - how do you possibly know? Please be more careful when editing this page and only edit when things become clearer. At the moment, it's purely disruptive. st170e 20:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Incidents need to be looked at on a case-by-case basis and best judgement needs to be used when adding or removing incidents from this article. In the case of the shooting at Fort-Lauderdale Airport, I agree that it is indeed too early to call the incident terrorism. It is however, a very strong candidate to be added to the list. This isn't a simple mass shooting but an attack on what is classified as critical infrastructure by the Department of Homeland Security. While it is unlikely that the perpetrator was influenced by Islamic terrorist organizations such as ISIS, he could still be a domestic terrorist. If the perpetrator was yelling "Allahu Akbar" while he was shooting, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. An incident shouldn't be classified as terrorism or not solely based on who the perpetrator is. Finally, it is my opinion that the list of terrorist incidents should start to include suspected terrorist attacks in addition to the confirmed ones.StrikeDog (talk) 22:31, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree that incidents need to be reviewed case-by-case, for example this diff. I agree that he could be a domestic terrorist, who knows (as of yet)? From what I have been reading, the perpetrator has been suffering with his mental health and until it is proven that it is a terrorist attack, we cannot add this article to the list. I feel that editors have been rushing to edit this article with the latest shootings before actually considering if the shooting or other incident was actually terrorism. I also strongly disagree that we should add suspected terrorist attacks to this list - that just floats speculation which goes against WP:NOTSPECULATION. There are plenty of articles that were added to these types of lists but were removed because they weren't actually terrorism. Our aim on Wikipedia is to have the correct information in a neutral manner, not the wrong information as fast as we can edit (see WP:NOTNEWS). st170e 23:34, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I think we should be willing to add any attack that has a political motive without having to wait on American media to explicitly call it a "terrorist" attack because that never happens unless the assailants are Muslim extremists. Even with the 2015 Charleston church shooting, which was very clearly a violent attack with a political motive, very few media sources were willing to call it terrorism. I also agree that we shouldn't add suspected terrorism to the list because it may be excessive. Kamalthebest (talk) 03:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

The American media aren't the most reliable and when it comes to situations like this, it'd be preferable to wait on primary sources (i.e. from the FBI or otherwise) to confirm terrorism. With that in mind, if there is a clear political motive then I wouldn't be against it as such. According to this article from the BBC, terrorism hasn't been ruled out as a motive and the suspect's mental health was suffering (I wouldn't call that a terrorist incident). With regards to the Charleston shooting, the definition of the word 'terrorist' is a slippery slope and we need to make sure there's a clear divide between obvious hate crime and terrorism. st170e 11:45, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Anything that pundits are calling an obvious terrorist attack where terrorism is stated to be a possibility that has not been ruled out should be included. Unlike nations like Pakistan or Israel where war is openly declared, in the US and Canada, many clandestine attacks on schools or police are designed by intelligence operations to hide any political motive, so would be excluded if only attacks where intent is clearly broadcast are included. If there is doubt about the motive, it can be noted, but it makes Wikipedia useless for research into terrorism if it is only mentioned when the suspect is convicted of terrorism, in most cases, suspects are not even charged with terrorism if they can be convicted for murder. In most cases, attacks are engineered with a mental illness cover story even if they do claim to be a terrorist like the nanny who beheaded a child in Russia. Authorities and mass media routinely fail to rule an incident as terrorism in many nations for political reasons. In the case of the airport, authorities clearly erred in determining that the suspect had no ties or affinity with ISIS even though he walked into FBI office and told them he was an ISIS terrorist watching radicalized videos and uses the same e-mail as a user on radical video internet groups. Bachcell (talk) 06:03, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree. This article is just becoming "List of Islamist terrorist incidents in January 2017" because no other attack is called "terrorism" by the media or intelligence agencies. I suggest we should re-add the attacks in Chicago, Fort Lauderdale, Mexico, etc. with a "motive: unknown" footnote. Kamalthebest (talk) 03:00, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

By definition of terrorism, the motive is purely political, ideological or otherwise. You may have your opinion on these events, but until there are sources, we can't imply that the events are terrorist-related. The US has seen a lot of mass shootings, does that mean they are all terrorist incidents? The reason there are so many Islamic terrorist incidents is because there are wars going on, terrorist groups are fighting. Mass shootings in the US occur too frequently, but without a known motive, they can't be added. Wikipedia is not speculative, and adding the incidents go against that policy. st170e 19:01, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Bold

If casualty figures are 20 or more, they will be shown in bold

Please don't use bold this way; it's not allowed (MOS:BOLD). You'll have to think of something else. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Fair point, although the page specifically says avoid rather than strictly forbidding any usage of bold. One could also argue that this is not the average article - in a dense piece of text I absolutely agree with the idea to avoid bold, but in a table like this - provided we manage to convince everyone to properly attribute and reference - it makes more sense, at least to me. Skycycle (talk) 02:09, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Skycycle, precisely because it's a wikitable, it supports advanced formatting like background color for cells. Something like that would be ideal here. FLs do that sort of thing all the time (see e.g. List of German World War II jet aces for a formatting example). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:05, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I will look into it more over the weekend! Skycycle (talk) 04:22, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Israel and Palestine incidents

I don't think we should remove the flags from next to any incident that occurs in Israeli/Palestinian land. I understand that the territory is very contested but removing the flags from the attacks that take place in these countries ruins the format and continuity of the table. Instead, let's just continue to add the flag for whoever currently administers that land. For example, East Jerusalem is administered by Israel so it should have a "" next to it, while al-Fari'ah is administered by Palestine so it should have a "". Kamalthebest (talk) 20:24, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, but can you please follow procedure and sign every post with ~~~~. Thank you! We have a lot of problems with attribution, references, and just poor English recently, so please look at my post below and add your opinion\advice :) Skycycle (talk) 02:06, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Alright, fixed it. Whoops! Kamalthebest (talk) 20:24, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Disagree By adding the flag of whoever administers the land on which a terrorist incident occurred, incidents which occur in Area C of the West Bank or in any of the settlements will have the Israeli flag. Since this is highly controversial, I propose that the current status quo is maintained and all incidents in disputed territories have their flags removed and have a non-controversial name; West Bank in this instance or East Jerusalem.StrikeDog (talk) 04:04, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I still think that it ruins the formatting of the table not to have some flag there. Personally, I'd fine with putting Israel's flag next to incidents in Area C of the West Bank because it is administered by Israel even though it's occupied territory. If that's not okay, then the other alternative I can see would be to put both flags next to the same incident to distinguish that both countries have claim to that land. I think that'd still look better than no flag at all. Also, al-Fari'ah is not disputed territory, all sides agree it's a Palestinian refugee camp. Kamalthebest (talk) 20:30, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

More protection?

To the more senior editors out here - I am getting quite tired of poor referencing, basic English grammar and vocabulary mistakes, and general wrong or too quick attribution of incidents. In particular I have messaged Giuanluigi02 twice, to no avail. I am now forced to ask for help from everyone else here - we need to raise the protection level of this article (and any future ones), or find a way to block/limit these users if they continue to contribute in the same way. This user isn't alone, just the person who has been editing most recently. Skycycle (talk) 02:07, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

@Gianluigi02: @St170e: @Kamalthebest:

Thanks for the ping. I do agree there should be more protection because the level of unprofessionalism is astounding. What protection are you suggesting? st170e 10:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Not sure what our options are, a bit busy these last few weeks to be honest. Does anyone else care to suggest something? Skycycle (talk) 03:43, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not really sure what our options are either but I am on board with whatever level of protection is decided on. It might also help against people citing 'Daily Mail' and 'Infowars' articles as credible sources, which keeps happening. Kamalthebest (talk) 20:29, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

New user like the above, @Kristijh: has begun making absolutely horrible edits (will fix them later), I messaged on the talk page, and will start requesting bans very very soon, I think. Skycycle (talk) 15:20, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

@Skycycle: @Kamalthebest: Earlier today I requested pending changes protection on the article. It's now been protected for a year. I'm not sure how effective it'll be, but I'm hopeful. st170e 22:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, that is great news. What about follow-up articles for February, March, ... will they get the same level automatically? Skycycle (talk) 18:35, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

@Skycycle: I'm not sure, but I hope so. I don't think pending changes is effective. Given the recent addition of unsourced material, I may ask for upgrading protection to semi-protection instead of PC. st170e 20:12, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Why are organized crime and hate crimes on this List?

IMO, the Ireland shooting, and the man who was shot in Ashdod for "speaking Arabic" don't count as terrorism. L3X1 Complaints Desk 15:22, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

L3X1 A terrorist group has claimed responsibility for the shooting of the police officer. st170e 17:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

St170e That is why I left the Jan 22nd shooting off my complaint. L3X1 Complaints Desk 17:27, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

My apologies, were you referring to the Jan 13 shooting? st170e 19:13, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

St170e Yes, I am referring to the 5th and the 13th incidents. Kamalthebest, thanks for the explanation. L3X1 Complaints Desk 02:20, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Normally, we don't include hate crimes but the Ashdod incident was explicitly being investigated as "terrorism" in the linked source. Same is true for the second Belfast shooting, which mentioned that it was "violent dissident republicans" who were most likely responsible. Kamalthebest (talk) 01:24, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

NPA attack on January 30 not a terrorist incident

Recommendation for the January 30 incident attributed to the New People's Army to be removed. The attack is an example of guerrilla or asymmetrical warfare against a state military force, using an ambush tactic. An actual terror incident would have involved the targeting of unarmed civilians or politicians, which did not occur in this one. Agila81 (talk) 08:17, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

@Agila81: For this table, I think we do consider an attack by a recognized terrorist group against law enforcement as terrorism. There are a lot of incidents on here that would need to be removed if that didn't count as terrorism such as the January 1st incident in Tartus, Syria; the January 1st incident in Ma'an, Jordan; the January 4th in Kunduz, Afghanistan; the January 7th in Yobe State, Nigeria. All of these incidents involved terror groups attacking soldiers/police/etc. Kamalthebest (talk) 22:47, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

@Kamalthebest: Technically this is a guerrilla warfare attack. A terrorist incident normally involves an attack against unarmed civilians/politicians/authority figures, in an attempt to bolster political aims and/or intimidate the populace. What constitutes a guerrilla-style attack today is becoming increasingly blurred because of consistently aggrandised news reports. Agila81 (talk) 09:18, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

List of the Quebec Mosque Shooting

I've removed the entry for the Quebec Mosque shooting, but, I suspect this is a situation that should have a greater consensus discussion. Plain and simple, the suspect in custody has not been charged with an act of terrorism. A quick scan of the main article will give you a mixed impression of the situation. The Canadian Prime Minister has labelled it an act of terrorism, as have apparently other politicians and representatives in Canada, and many sources. There's precedent for ignoring the knee-jerk reactions of politicians to label things, 2016 Nice attack is an example of where political statements vs the investigation and charges have kept the "terrorism" label off the page for many months now. The reason being lack of a defined motive, which is also what we have here. Even in Canadian Law a political, religious or idelogical motive must be attrivuted to the attack. I'd be surprised if the motives weren't skewed towards bigotry, but, we can't claim to know something that we don't. At this moment the shooter, (Alexandre Bissonette), has been charged with six counts of first degree murder and five counts of attempted murder with no terrorism related charges. Citation. Because the suspect is alive and "well" and has not been charged for terrorism or any terrorist related offence it would be inappropriate to make this attack a part of this list. Murder cases don't immediately go to "list of terrorist incidents", even if Trudea, whom I have a low opinion of admittedly, and other politicians think they should. Though, I have to concede that many sources are labelling this as terrorism because ... Trudea (or other politician) said it? that's all I've come across regarding this. Even the Guardian just says; in an act condemned as a “terrorist attack” by Canada’s prime minister. Sorry, not sorry, but, such a contentious claim needs more and better sourcing. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:04, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

JBergsma1 - I'm pinging you here (I think, I can't tell due redlink). New York Times discredits the "terrorism" claim as does the National Post above; He was not charged with terrorism, which under Canada’s Criminal Code requires a broad proof of intent to intimidate the public. Aside from quoting Trudea is there a (reliable) source that actually makes the claim that this was a terrorist attack and not that this was a "terrorist attack" according to Trudea (Trudea also does not equal "Canadian Government" btw). The scare quotes are important, every source I've looked at puts "terrorist attack" in the headline and then goes on to say some variant of "according to Trudea" or "says the Canadian Prime Minister". I also came across one source that does that for Former Governor General Adrienne Clarkson but can't find it. That's just not definitive enough to call terrorism without breaching NPOV and V, at best the Guardian is saying "Trudea called it terrorism". I've read ABC, CTVNews, The Globe and Mail, Fox News (because of that thing they did regarding Bissonette being Morrocan), CNN, SMH. The closest I get to a definitive statement is "Ten minutes of Terror" by CBC, and even they don't call it terrorism. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:03, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the investigation is still ongoing and the suspect has not yet confessed to his actions. But note that the clarity of what kind of shootings fit the definition of terrorism and what not is kind of difficult to establish. It's easier when a group takes responsible for certain actions and an agency calling it terrorism. But when it comes to lone wolfs that act on their own according to an ideology it's rather more difficult to determine whether they are terrorists or not. When a charge of terrorism is not given like you just said with this recent incident it doesn't mean it's not terrorism. There are two (or more) examples of cases in which terrorism was not the charge to a violent crime: The Murder of Jo Cox and the Murder of Lee Rigby. Though the perpetrators of these crimes were not charged with terrorism they were attributed to terrorist ideologies and therefore called 'terrorist'in the media. In this particular incident, a mosque was attacked and a mosque is a special place were people go who adhere islam. Now if you look at the definition of terrorism which I cite: the use of intentionally indiscriminate violence as a means to create terror or fear, in order to achieve a political, religious, or ideological aim. This all fits within this case. The suspected perpetrator didn't just attack a mosque to randomnly kill people, he attacked a special religious group and caused fear within this group. If you put attention to the news in foreign countries with muslims as a minority group it explains that many mosques were increasing security over fears of another attack. This clearly represents what terrorism is, causing fear in a certain group with a certain ideology. Now you probably will respond to this that it wasn't confirmed as terrorism but again, this was someone acting on his own and as there are enough sources labeling this incident as a terrorist attack it could be considered as one. And not Trudeau only considered it as terrorism. Also the local major and other officials (read this http://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/1013902/attentat-a-quebec-tout-le-monde-a-ete-atteint-philippe-couillard). In every case there are people who are against the use of the word 'terrorism' for a certain incident. Because what is considered terrorism for one group is an act of resistance for the other (just like with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict). But as the fast majority of sources labels the shooting in Quebec as terrorism it should allowed to be added to wikipedia. JBergsma1 (talk) 10:46, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Appreciate the reply JBergsma1. But note that the clarity of what kind of shootings fit the definition of terrorism and what not is kind of difficult to establish - My point exactly, so then why are we claiming it with absolute certainty that it is by putting it on the list? That is why we avoid contentious labels without definitive proof; WP:TERRORIST. I do have to concede though that that is also likely true for 3/4 of these "list of terrorist incidents ... " entries anyway and it's also why I tend to despise them. They are very difficult to manage for POV and to be honest I think these articles should have {{NPOV}} and {{Unbalanced}} permanently displayed as a warning to readers to approach it with significant skepticism. Way too many people believe these articles are wholly accurate when they really aren't. When a charge of terrorism is not given like you just said with this recent incident it doesn't mean it's not terrorism. That's true to a certain extent I suppose. [A]s there are enough sources labeling this incident as a terrorist attack it could be considered as one. - This is the one big contention I have; I've actually asked for one doing precisly this, I've read a bunch of sources (listed above) that state Trudea/Canada's Prime Minister has named it a terrorist attack, but, not a single source saying this in its own words. In fact that is what the currently cited The Guardian has done; in an act condemned as a “terrorist attack” by Canada’s prime minister - even the title uses quotation marks around the term. In every case there are people who are against the use of the word 'terrorism' for a certain incident. - Oh yes definitely true and also part of the POV issue with these articles. I recall an AfD to delete them all for that very reason. Nice is similar to Quebec in this respect. Inspite of the French President's declaration that it was terrorism, no motive was identified to make it terrorism. Note all other .wiki's except en.wiki have already declated the Nice attack to be terrorism in their respective articles. But as the fast(sic) majority of sources labels the shooting in Quebec as terrorism it should allowed to be added to wikipedia. - Again, not in their own words. If you can find one or two reliable sources that do this in their own words, then I can't object to it even if I WP:DONTLIKEIT. That said, I've amended the entry here to reflect the situation more precisely and note the charges of murder but not terrorism. If you're satisfied with that then we can call this a middle-ground solution for the time being unless others weigh in. Note; my position on this falls under WP:TOOSOON , I've read elsewhere that Bissonette has far right extremist views, if that is the case then this could well be filed under "far right extremism". Till then, everything we're doing is based on limited evidence. This is necessarily the case for such "in the news" issues. On a more off-topic but still relevant point; In this particular incident, a mosque was attacked and a mosque is a special place were people go who adhere islam. To rebuke the implied motive of Islamophobia here; Hopewell Missionary Baptist Church in Greenville is a historically "black church", it was burnt and spray painted with "vote Trump". The person who committed the crime was black, had no affiliation with the Trump campaign and the media assigned "political motive" of "far right extremists" turned out to be a hoax. This is likely not the case here, but, it goes to show why waiting for evidence before making the claim is vitally important. To this day many media outlets have not pulled the story and they are still accessible. Just do a search for "black church burning" and you'll find "the Atlantic" and "ABC" at the very top with their Nov 2 stories still accessible. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:34, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I understand the commotion about adding this incident to the list. It has occured to me before that there was an incident that fit within the describtion of terrorism but wasn't confirmed as such. I had a discussion with a person about an incident in which we disagreed about adding it or not back in October last year. It's on my talk page (See WP:NOR violations). I came to the conclusion like you just said to wait for more information about the perpetrator's motives and ideology. What that discussion was about could be interpreted to this case as well. I agree with you to wait for more information about this incident before it should be added to the list. But like you said, there is only one problem with the list of terrorist incidents in general. There are quit a lot of attacks similar to this one but they get less media attention. Because they occur in instable countries for example. Still some of these incidents get added to the list but then no one is deleting them because they are getting less media attention. Once there is a motive described in a source with these incidents editors will approve it. I think this is because when there is a mass shooting similar to this one in a country like Afghanistan many people will think it's terrorism because it's a country suffering from terrorist attacks on a daily bases. So if a mass shooting occurs in a mosque in Afghanistan commited by a man with mental health problems there will be less research if the man was in fact a terrorist or not because it happens in a country at war. Now what I'm trying to say is that basically this list of terrorist incidents is kind of unreliable because of the multiplicity of terrorism-related violence in the world nowadays that make similar violent incidents that aren't terrorism are seen as terrorism as well. So I don't know whether the incident in Canada should get removed as other incidents are on the list that are similar to this one. But I'm not in the position to judge about that. JBergsma1 (talk) 12:21, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude: The attack on the Quebec City mosque was terrorism. It's clear that the perpetrator had political motives (he had anti-immigration postings in web forums) and the Prime Minister of Canada called it an act of terror. While he was not formally been charged with terrorism, there are many incidents on this table where the perpetrator was not formally charged with terrorism but we still included it anyway such as the 2017 Istanbul nightclub shooting, the 2017 Kidapawan jail siege, and the 2017 Jerusalem truck attack. Also, we can't wait for the media to call it a terrorist attack before including it on this list becuase, as I stated previously on this talk page, the media never refers to incidents as terrorism unless it was committed by an Islamist. Even the Charleston church shooting, which was obviously "violence for political aims," was not called terrorism by the media. Kamalthebest (talk) 21:54, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

@Kamalthebest:, Thanks for bringing those examples of attacks in which the perpetrator wasn't charched. It clearly shows what the types of terrorist attacks there are and how they differ from each other. But the differents between the examples you've given and the shooting in Quebec is that those examples of attacks were both commited by radical muslims. The shooting in Canada was a rare event as there are quite a small amount of right-wing attacks committed in the world in comparisson with islamist attacks. Another problem is the fact that the perpetrator was acting alone which makes his intention less clear in comparisson with the actions of a terrorist group. I do agree with @Mr rnddude: that calling this incident an act of terrorism without knowing the intentions of the suspect falls under WP:TOOSOON. I think we can draw our conclusio from the trail of the suspect if the shooting was terrorism or not. If he gets convicted for (right-wing)terrorism his behaviour might be comparable with that of Anders Breivik, who was in fact convicted for terrorism. By behaviour I mean no remorse for the victims, crying because of a propaganda video, creating a right-wing gesture with his arm etc. So in short I think we should wait for the outcome of the trail if the incident should be allowed to be added to wikipedia (excuse my grammar mistakes, I'm not a native speaker). JBergsma1 (talk) 01:30, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

The frequency by which certain types of terror incidents occur should not be our barometer for whether or not to include them on this list. If adding the Quebec shooting falls under WP:TOOSOON, the majority of incidents on this list will have to be removed as well. No one was charged for terrorism in the 2017 Jerusalem truck attack (yet), but there is no debate over whether that is terrorism because it was clearly politically motivated violence. I would argue the same for the Quebec attack. Kamalthebest (talk) 02:45, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Kamalthebest I agree entirely with you when you say the majority of incidents on this list will have to be removed as well - well "should" rather than "will", but, nevermind that for a moment. I said somewhere above that about 3/4 of the entries on this list (and any other "list of terrorist incidents in ...") were probably added well before enough information had come to light. On the one hand that doesn't excuse us creating more misinformation, but, on the other hand these lists shouldn't be taken as reliable. They aren't by many Wikipedia editors, but, it's the public that concerns me because they won't know how to differentiate between reliable and unreliable articles. JBergsma1 I did amend the entry to note that the suspect has been charged with murder and attempted murder only. I still think the entry falls under TOOSOON. I've tried to think of the available solutions and I have three of them. 1; Remove the entry for the time being per the TOOSOON argument. 2; Keep the entry and tag the entire article as unreliable. I'd have to create a template for that as I don't know that one exists, there's tags for unreliable sourcing, but, I'd make it clear the entire thing is unreliable. Or 3; Go through each entry of this list (147 of them) and pull them apart. For example; the fourth entry in the article about a double suicide bombing in Tartus, Syria claims ISIL is responsible. The source is Reuters. Try finding a mention of "Islamic State", "ISIL", "ISIS" or "Daesh" anywhere in the source. Or even better the very next one down below in Herat which is attributed to the Taliban. The unusual source choice of AA reports; No group has yet claimed responsibility for the attack. I'm happy to go with option 3 and remove or amend obviously improper entries from this article. It will take a while, but, it would only be fair to do this and thereby improve the article. If that is the preferred option I'll punch through as much of it as I can today and the rest tomorrow. I'll start at the top and deal with each entry till I get to the bottom, that way, the Quebec shooting will remain until I've cleared out most of the article. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:23, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude:Yes, I'm with the decision you expressed in argument 3. I think this whole list should be cleared of the vague (unconfirmed) incidents. But in some cases the sources used are quite poor or they're sources that were published when an attack just occured and little information is given because it was a current event at that time. So some incidents should remain in the list but with better sourcing. When it comes to the Tartus bombing in Syria, I've read a reuters article on the incident that included ISIL claiming responsibility,[1] . So in my opinion this incident should remain on the list but with a different source supporting it. I also agree with arguments 1 and 2 you expressed. The readers of this article should be aware that it needs improvement. JBergsma1 (talk) 20:30, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

No, I'm not in favor of just deleting half this table. Besides, there are lists like these for 2015, 2014, dating all the way back to 1970 and all them use the same logic when adding incidents to the list: was it a politically motivated violence? If so, it is added. We can't go back through all of these articles and retroactively remove incidents that don't fit our particular definition of what counts as terrorism. Like, Mr rnddude mentioned, these lists are not meant to be a scholarly anyway. I think it'd be a good idea if someone wants to add a disclaimer on the top of the article that says something about its unreliability, but not unilaterally deleting entries. Kamalthebest (talk) 21:26, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm fine with the disclaimer idea. But the problem with the recent years incidents is that there are plenty of attacks listed in comparisson with the other attacks in the 1970s -1990s. And many of them are in fact unconfirmed.JBergsma1 (talk) 21:44, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I hadn't planned on removing any entry just because the sourcing was inadequate. I meant going through and fixing problems the best I could and removing entries that had extremely limited base. However, I recognize that this will be both difficult and controversial to do in many cases. In any case, I can agree on the "disclaimer" approach and that seems to be the preferred approach. I'll take a second look through maintenance templates, if I can't find any that fit the intended purpose then I'll create one and propose it here for a first inspection. When the template is ready then we again have two options; 1. place on this article and see how it's received or 2. because this is one of many similar articles propose an RfC for wider ranging application. Perhaps option 1 is a better place to start and move to option 2 if it has a beneficial impact. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:38, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I'm fine with these adaptions. But I suggest the article to be protected in favour of wikipedia users only as there were several anonymous users commiting possible acts of vandalism.JBergsma1 (talk) 12:01, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Chicago kidnapping and torture

Sorry if I screw up the formatting, it's been a long time since I've done any wikipedia stuff... I noticed the Chicago kidnapping of the mentally handicapped man didn't seem to be listed. I don't want to try to add it (it seems to fit the profile of a terrorist attack, since the man was targeted, unfortunately, specifically for being white) because my wiki fu is weak and I don't want to mess up the formating, but maybe someone could add it? Here is the link to the wiki page on it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Chicago_torture_incident

Nacoran (talk) 22:31, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of terrorist incidents in January 2017. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170116062358/http://aranews.net/2017/01/isis-militants-execute-crucify-two-syrian-men-for-supporting-kurdish-forces-and-us-led-coalition/ to http://aranews.net/2017/01/isis-militants-execute-crucify-two-syrian-men-for-supporting-kurdish-forces-and-us-led-coalition/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:22, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

RfC: terrorist incidents list criteria

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of terrorist incidents#RfC: List criteria. – Levivich 17:59, 10 August 2019 (UTC)