Talk:List of terrorist incidents in July 2016

A list of useful sources

I am abandoning the list so Here is a list of sources:

• South Asia Terrorism Portal - This is a list of events in South Asia and some of them are terrorist attacks. My suggestion is not to use the website as a source, but to search the sources (i.e. name of news site) from where the website took the incidents, and they always provide the sources.
• IraqNews - This is a good Iraqi news website in English that contain reports on attacks in Iraq.
• The Religion of Peace - Do not use this one as a source what so ever - This is a very POV website, but it include a list of terrorist attacks, you can go and search for those attacks in google to find them in a reliable source, or you can to the homepage which includes a link to reliable sources.
• LiveUAmap - This can't be used as a source, but you can use it to find attacks and search them in reliable sources. It is avalible for: Syria, Israel/Palestine, Turkey, Egypt, Afghanistan, Caucasus, India as well as others you can browse on the top of the site.

Cheers.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 17:30, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

American states are not countries

There is a different between a nation state and a state in a nation. Everyone needs to stop using American states as countries when including incidents that took place in the USA. Beejsterb (talk) 05:45, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Incident

Some sources claim this is a terrorist incident. I disagree, but is there anyone who agrees with the claims? http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/pakistani-social-media-icon-strangled-suspected-honor-killing/ Beejsterb (talk) 23:58, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 July 2016

|- |18 |Suicide car bombings |11 |18 | Mukalla, Yemen |Eleven people ,including four civilians, were killed and eighteen people were injured in twin suicidal car bombings. |Unknown |Yemeni Civil War |-

105.186.111.174 (talk) 17:16, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Cannolis (talk) 18:57, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

References

Adding continent column

I believe it might be useful for categorization and further studies to add a continent column. I will add it to this list and wait for your reaction. --Aida (talk) 16:38, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Disagree. A country and a location is all we need. I'm sorry by I don't see the point of adding this extra information. Beejsterb (talk) 05:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

July 24

Today there were multiple bombings in the same area. I am using this section to count up the death and injured toll.

Baghdad:

• Kadhimiya - 21+ (+1) dead, 35+ wounded: http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/24/middleeast/iraq-baghdad-suicide-bombing-isis/ (ISIS is responsible)

• Abu Ghraib - 3 dead, 11 wounded: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/619d3f13431a4f1797e278807dc9e515/iraq-suicide-attack-baghdad-kills-least-10-people (ISIS suspected)

• al-Obeidi - 2 dead, 4 wounded: http://www.iraqinews.com/iraq-war/blast-in-eastern-baghdad-six-casualties/ (Unknown)

Baghdad total: 26+ (+1) dead, 50+ wounded.

There are also two other attacks in Iraq that will be added

Feel free to add more. Beejsterb (talk) 22:11, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Additional counters

I propose that counters for total number of people killed and injured throughout the month be added alongside the counter for total number of incidents. StrikeDog (talk) 00:11, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

The scope of this list

Hello. Very informative list and good work! But... why are executions and attacks on soldiers and police officers listed as a terrorist incident? RhinoMind (talk) 16:22, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Baghdad

I have noticed that Baghdad in particular experiences multiple terrorist attacks per day. It seems redundant to create multiple incidents for attacks that occurred in the same place on the same day. Therefore, incidents should be limited to one per location per day. All attacks will be combined into a single incident in such a case. What are your thoughts? StrikeDog (talk) 20:27, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good. Beejsterb (talk) 20:56, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Munich shootings

From the investigation, it appears as though the shooter was politically motivated, therefore terrorism. See 2016 Munich shooting. Now, although this has been confirmed, it has not yet been confirmed as terrorism. If we do not add incidents that aren't strongly suspected to be terrorist attacks and just add incidents that are confirmed, this article would barely have anything on it because these incidents and the perpetrator's motive take a long time to investigate. Now, lets look at the 2016 Nice attack, which is included in this list. This is a single example of many. A investigation into this incident confirmed that the suspect had political motivations, yet the incident has not been confirmed a terrorism as the investigation into the motive has not yet ended and is still ongoing. These incidents are both strongly suspected to have a politically motivated killer, so I believe they should both be added. Beejsterb (talk) 00:40, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

You've got a point. It seems that when people suspect Islamic extremism as a motive they faster see it as terrorism compared to right-wing extremism. I think indeed both should be added.

JBergsma1 (talk) 23:18, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

References

See below:

About the Dallas and Baton Rouge shooting

I see that the Dallas and Baton Rouge shootings are deleted because terrorism was not (yet) confirmed. But that is similar to the Nice Attack and the knife attack in Australia on August 24. There are indications that these incidents are indeed terrorism but that hasn't been confirmed. In that case, both should be deleted as well until further notice.

When it comes to the Dallas and Baton Rouge shootings, both had black supremacy as a motive (similar to white supremacy, which can be a terrorist ideology). Since both shootings were politically motivated and caused fear and patic, I think they deserve to be on the list. ~ JBergsma1 (talk) 23:28, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Agreed for the same reasons that I already stated above. Beejsterb (talk) 01:23, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I didn't see this at first because I was banned for a week at the time. But there is no confirmation that both shootings were politically motivated and meant to cause fear and panic, let alone being motivated by black supremacy. Both cases sound more like targeted killings than anything else, the targets being police officers, obviously. Parsley Man (talk) 00:31, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm thinking of introducing this to WP:VPP, since this is obviously part of a bigger problem regarding the distinction of a terrorist attack. What do you think? Parsley Man (talk) 06:21, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

There is indeed no confirmation on that. But what we are trying to say is that there are many other incidents on the list that aren't confirmed as well. Those incidents are not confirmed but there were only indications (like the knife attack in Australia in which the perpetrator shouted 'allahu akbar') that it was terrorism motivated. Because the investigation by police to confirm something as terrorism is quite long and complicated, many of the incidents are posted in advance and are also deleted if terrorism wasn't confirmed. So in my opinion we could keep these incidents until the police excludes terrorism in the investigation. But you can ad this to the WP:VPP, sounds not bad to me. And what the outcome of that may be can also tell us more about what is suitable for the list. So I'll wait for now because an edit war is not what should be done on Wikipedia and let's hope there will be a better outcome if more people join the discussions.~ JBergsma1 (talk) 08:19, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

But there's a WP:NOR violation if we keep those incidents under the assumption that they were terrorist attacks when that hasn't been confirmed in reality yet. I only removed the Dallas and Baton Rouge shootings, plus the Japan stabbings, because those are the only ones that caught my eye and I am not aware of any other examples on that list (or any other related list) that requires removal. If you are aware of any other examples, please remove them if you could.

But other than that, yes, I'll introduce this to VPP as soon as I can. Parsley Man (talk) 17:50, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok Thanks, sure I'll remove the ones I've mentioned. But these are mostly stabbing attacks by which a madman shouted 'allahu akbar'. And by someone shoutinf that they see it as terrorism. JBergsma1 (talk) 23:12, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Sources don't call Dallas or Baton Rouge terrorism. They cannot be listed here equity sources calling it terrorism, regardless of your opinions. WP:NOR. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:54, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

About the Nice attack

There have been discussions throughout Talk:2016 Nice attack ([1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]), the latest of which is still ongoing, and many, if not all of them seem to be under the agreement that the attack should be classified as terrorism if an official investigation has turned up legitimate ties to terror-related motives and/or organizations, and if people highly and deeply involved in the investigation (e.g. top investigators, prosecutors) definitively confirm it. Which I agree with. WP:TERRORIST is also at play here.

Thoughts? Parsley Man (talk) 02:37, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

There is more than enough evidence for a terrorist motivation, and don't forget the French president who officially announced it. And I can't see a consensus for deletion. Above that, many users will search the event here and wonder why they don't find it.--Gerry1214 (talk) 18:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

We cannot trust Hollande's word for it. He was making a quick appeal to the French public that has now been affected by terrorism. We must wait for more official confirmation. Parsley Man (talk) 00:14, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

He was making a quick appeal to the French public that has now been affected by terrorism - those are your thoughts constituting OR not source thoughts. So far you've been reverted (indirectly) by many different editors -excluding myself from the count as I did it on procedural grounds. Consider starting an RfC to get attention to the talk page. If somebody else inserts the Nice attack back on the article page, leave it for somebody else to take it out, don't do it yourself as it now stands to be a slow burning edit-war on the article, and so far you're the only editor who is actively opposed to the inclusion of the attack on the article page. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:01, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. This article is mostly edited by biased people so of course it wouldn't be removed, and I have to constantly keep track of it. Parsley Man (talk) 16:43, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Parsley Man I am assuming good faith, merely suggesting that stretching the edit war is pointless here and to instead try get an RfC started instead if we cannot find common ground on which to agree. That is, rather than a perpetual edit war while we wait for French authorities to make a solid conclusion. The question I would be asking is, is there enough evidence to suggest that this is a terrorist incident? and to this I must posit yes. This is not about classifying types of terror incidents only making statements about what is a terror incident. I must also ask how are we certain that things that happened yesterday - see List of terrorist incidents in November 2016 - are terrorist incidents, yet a worldwide reported massacre in July is still up in the air. Well, simply put it's not really - almost all sources unequivocally state "terror attack" in their reporting. What is up in the air is the motive which is as yet unknown. It makes sense to start an RfC at Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks about whether Islam is involved - but I don't think it's needed here as it can be left out. Note, many of the entries in the list state things like; (suspected) and unknown for the perpetrator. It would make sense to do that here as well, thus remove the bias and not the whole entry. You could kill the edit war in its tracks by simply putting a (suspected) or (under investigation) tag on it. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:14, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't follow every event that is listed on these articles; my edits only affect those events that I have followed faithfully. In regards to yesterday's events, you're going to have to ask one of the other users who have edited frequently on such articles. Also, if the motive is unknown, we really can't call it terrorism, given it is a motive type. And if what you're saying is true, these list articles need some serious purging. But I really don't have time for that.

Also, I don't know how to start an RfC.

Parsley Man (talk) 17:18, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Add; Nuance is difficult to enforce here, whether or not it actually constitutes terrorism is technically also under investigation, but, it would be a fair middle ground to include the attack on account of that being the major focus of the investigation and note that it's under investigation. At the end of the investigation, if it's still terrorism and we have the perpetrator include it in the entry, if it's not terrorism, remove it outright. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:21, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

But there's an additional problem I just realized: people are actually being tried in the case. Would it be a violation of WP:BLPCRIME to call these suspects terrorists by association when a conviction has not even been issued? Parsley Man (talk) 17:23, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Nope, that's the beauty of filling in the perpetrator line with; unknown/under investigation. It would be a BLPCRIME issue if we made claims about the people involved, which of course we won't do, because, we don't know. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:26, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Wow. What's with you? I thought you were all in for waiting for official confirmation of the Nice attack being terrorism? Parsley Man (talk) 17:29, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, for the main article we can't state it is terrorism outright -hence why I oppose including it in the lede and infobox (especially the infobox)-, what we did do is state that it is suspected terrorism (at least 12 times in different ways in the main article). There is nothing stopping us from putting a disclaimer on it here as well, is there? I want to kill the edit war, not start an ideologically driven discussion. I am not an ideologue, I am a neutral editor seeking middle ground. I recommend against the 32nd strategy of warfare - just so we're clear. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:37, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

This disclaimer has to apply everywhere, otherwise people can take advantage of this and break policies by using other articles to advance their agenda. Parsley Man (talk) 17:44, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

The consensus on one article cannot be used to impose a consensus on another article. This is because each article is considered inherently unreliable. The exceptions to this are sitewide discussions; the current PC2 RfC for example. There are only three pages that I know of that discuss the Nice attack; the main article, this list, and the list of Islamist terrorist attacks where an on-going RfC will decide the consensus over there. If that discussion closes as "include" it shouldn't affect this article - although inevitable the discussion will be had as a total edit-war erupts - I am not so naive as to expect that people will follow Wikipedia policy if there bias is confirmed. Again, if there wasn't an on-going edit war here I would be utterly unconcerned with whether or not it is included on the list until we had absolute confirmation -if we had absolute confirmation then I would be concerned-, as there is an edit-war happening here I'm trying to establish a satisfactory middle ground. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:54, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

There are also attempts to list it at Terrorism in Europe and Vehicular assault as a terrorist tactic, just to name a few. Parsley Man (talk) 18:01, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I didn't know those articles existed... alright, looking at it now and across all these pages, there are editwars over the Nice attack on all of them. This is going to need some sort of resolution and I don't think I'm in a position to try to resolve this across so many pages. Will have to sleep on it. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:13, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I'll have you know that I'm not the only one who's reverted an inclusion before. At the Vehicular assault as a terrorist tactic article, someone stepped in and reverted an IP editor's inclusion of the Nice attack, so clearly I'm not the only one who agrees with waiting for an official confirmation. Parsley Man (talk) 23:20, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I didn't say you were perpetuating the edit-war on those articles, merely noting that there is one. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:52, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Thanks for the clarification. Parsley Man (talk) 03:27, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

RfC: terrorist incidents list criteria

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of terrorist incidents#RfC: List criteria. – Levivich 18:01, 10 August 2019 (UTC)