Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:36, 20 April 2010

Lists Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Misplaced Pages. 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Crime and Criminal Biography: Terrorism Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. 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 article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Terrorism task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Years List‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Years, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Years on Misplaced Pages. 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 List This article has been rated as List-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Links from this article which need disambiguation (check | fix): ], ], ], (2x) ], ], ], ], ], (3x) ], ], ] For help fixing these links, see Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Disambiguation/Fixing a page. Added by WildBot | Tags to be removed | FAQ | Report a problem

Egyptian Attack - Sectarian Violence or Terrorism

Article states that it was sectarian violence assosciated with a previous crime by a Christian. Does that constitute terrorism. Not really in this instance as it is a targetting of a minority because of a previous crime. If the Coptics were targetted because of their religion or targetted by a member of what is considered a terrorist organization then it is a terrorist act. So far it looks like the act of criminals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AmerCana (talk • contribs) 13:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

when criminals/terrorists attack a group of unarmed civilians its a terror act--TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

also, the story about the "previous crime" isn't yet confirmed, but doesn't change the matter.--TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

However in America all the time people open fire on churches, resteraunts and other public places killing civilians and injuring others. For instance last month in Washington State four police officers were targetted by a lone gunman but that wasn't declared a terrorist incident. It appears this muslim shooter had a long list of crimes but is also connected to people in the main party in Eqypt.http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/100107/world/egypt_religion_unrest —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.77.245.189 (talk) 15:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

the U.S. gunmen don't have a clear motive, they go in because of a psycho. condition (AFAIK) this was targeted against a different community. Goal: intimidation of a whole community. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 18:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

FearGod: where did you get this definition of terrorism. Fine ONE reputable source at least that cites this. "when criminals/terrorists attack a group of unarmed civilians its a terror act--"

In the meantime, wikipedia is not for personal whims discretions.

while we're at it Terrorism may help your case.

OK I have read it. Now you read it. Read Definitions of terrorism too. My point is just stronger now.--TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Attacks by country

Looks quite messy (and inconsistent with the annual lists) and will be even more so as the list expands during the year. the map on the 2009 page is more organized. perhaps we can get that put up with once a month> update?

OK--TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree about the messy part. I think this list leads to more overhead as the list expands and just takes up space. 72.229.156.157 (talk) 16:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

unfortunately it's impossible to put it at the right side because of the table. Like the one in Coalition casualties in Afghanistan --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

this list list is woefully un-updated. plenty of attacks listed below yet not in this count. if we add it, it ought to be regularly updated. unless someone takes responsibility to update it, it seems to just be a distraction and deceptive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lihaas (talk • contribs)

January 7th entry on attacks inside Russia

This entry has references to counter terrorist operations and I don't think that constitutes "a terrorist attack". A terrorist attack is one initiated by the terrorists themselves; therefore that specific part should be removed while the other details stay.

72.229.156.157 (talk) 16:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Those incidents do not appear to be terrorist but criminal actions. The one that killed was definite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AmerCana (talk • contribs) 21:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

again you with the criminal actions... Attacks on police in a conflict zone are guerrilla acts.--TheFEARgod (Ч) 10:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Robert Harner

Why is his death considered as a terrorist incident? It happened in Afghanistan, a war torn country. An explosion or a gun fire, his death should not be counted as a "terrorist incident", but as a war victim. Norum 01:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

of course. The military vehicle was targeted, that's a guerrilla warfare attack. God damn--TheFEARgod (Ч) 11:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

It's an official war against the Taliban. Of course the military will be targeted, what did you expect (read:sarcasm)? He would be considered a victim of terrorism if he died in an actual terror attack, as in Sept. 11 attacks etc etc. So you might as well count all those that died in WWII or WW I as victims of terror. Just because military vehicles were targeted too. For crying out loud! Norum 11:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

the same goes with the 3 humanitarians who died in an IED explosion--TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

So. let's say that a German unit in WW II came under attack from, lets say, polish partisans, you would call that a terrorist attack too because it was a guerrilla warfare? Norum 17:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I meant guerrilla warfare is not terrorism.--TheFEARgod (Ч) 19:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Therefore the victims of guerrilla attacks are war victims. So my point is proved. Thank you. Norum 20:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

12 Villagers killed by Maoist rebels

Is this a terrorist incident.

• http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100218/ap_on_re_as/as_india_rebel_attack

12 Villagers killed by Maoist rebels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.88.4 (talk) 09:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Murder of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh

I think the death of the Hamas military commander, in Dubai, on 20 Jan 2010 should be included in the list. References in the linked-page in the heading. Thanks.Mohamed Magdy (talk) 15:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I could only see a suggestion of "state terrorism" in the linked article, nothing is yet proven in the case. Alastairward (talk) 22:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Austin plane crash

I removed it from the list as the refs point to murder suicide, not terrorism. Alastairward (talk) 20:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

are you kidding? did you read the article title??? here are the words from the article: "DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano says her Department is taking a closer look at domestic terrorism. / his in the wake of that deadly attack on an IRS building in Austin, Texas. Software engineer Joseph Stack flew a private plane into the building after apparently writing an angry rant against the government online. Both Stack and an IRS worker were killed. "

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lihaas (talk • contribs)

One article is a "letter to the editor" piece, not an actual piece of work by a journalist checked by an editor, the other (quoted above) does not state that the attack itself was carried out by a terrorist. Murder, even mass murder, does not make one a terrorist. Alastairward (talk) 11:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

1. "DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano says her Department is taking a closer look at domestic terrorism....This in the wake of that deadly attack on an IRS building in Austin, Texas. Software engineer Joseph Stack flew a private plane into the building after apparently writing an angry rant against the government online. Both Stack and an IRS worker were killed." "Looking at domestic terrorism...IN THE WAKE OF..." it says the attack is TERRORISM. what differentiates terrorist vs. terrorism?

2. fair enough, nto a source to quote, but shows its acceptance as terrorism in line with the other.

3. http://www.realcourage.org/2010/02/stormfront-members-praise-terrorism/

http://altreport.hipsterrunoff.com/2010/02/will-austin-terrorist-attack-impact-sxsw-attendance.html

http://thephoenix.com/BLOGS/phlog/archive/2010/02/19/scott-brown-understands-where-that-guy-who-flew-his-plane-into-the-building-is-coming-from.aspx

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-02-18-plane-crash-building_N.htm

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/02/19/austin-plane-crash-criminal-act-domestic-terrorism/?loomia_ow=t0:s0:a4:g4:r1:c0.000000:b0:z5

3.1. bear in mind, the relevance of domestic terrorism when (As above) one official quotes its not terrorism like al-qaeda, but you have oklahoma and that Hunteree boys in MI. not to mention there is such a thin as lone wolf terrorism

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lihaas (talk • contribs)

here's the clincher: 2010 Austin plane crash

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lihaas (talk • contribs)

Common sense applies

Despite the person dying in 2010, the incident occured in 2009. We do not add a new incident because someone dies later, otherwise we would have some incidents that occur on multiple days in the same article. O Fenian (talk) 13:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

New attack in Egypt

A mild explosion in front of Jewish building, in Cairo down town. Does this count? Resources: voan news - ynet news Also other CNN, BBC and Aljazeera sources here . Mohamed Magdy, Thank You! (talk) 19:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

yep, definately counts. could be lone wolf terrorism if not claimed by a larger organization. with the political-religious history over there this does count. (read the last para. for context)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lihaas (talk • contribs)

"List of terrorist incidents. Remember that not all incidents are necessarily attacks, some such as, February 8, 17, ---are still terrorist incident related and therefore should be listed.---"

...says who? --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

exactly, on waht basis should it be set? in none of the years previous has this precedent been set, why should it be added not based on a mere whim? more discussion and consensus is needed to change the meaning of this.

you can dd taht to the wars in Iraq and Afghan opages.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lihaas (talk • contribs)

NI bombs

The bombs did not explode. Why is that listed anyway?--TheFEARgod (Ч) 22:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Right on the top of the page it says (and has said in prev. years too) : "The following is a timeline of acts and failed attempts that can be considered non-state terrorism in 2010."

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lihaas (talk • contribs)

The criteria for inclusion

First of all I think it's important that all editors should read this.

This means that every incident added to the list must be backed by reliable sources that call it "terrorism". If it's not, it will be removed.

To comply with this, and to try and make the article even slightly neutral, I've changed the introduction to:

This is a timeline of incidents in 2010 that have been labelled as "terrorism" and are not believed to have been carried out by a government or its forces (see state terrorism and state-sponsored terrorism).

I've removed quite a few incidents already, but more needs to be done.

~Asarlaí 18:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary thats not what the rules mean. i dont know if youve changed this from the previous years but the rules said if the wikisite (this) mentiosn the word terrorism then it has to be cited. just because a reprot doesnt mention the word doesnt revoke its status as a terror attack. see the pages for the group that carried out, they are listed as terror groups and with claimaints for such groups it is. Terrorism is violence for political emans.

Secondly, get consensus on your drastic changes before going on edit wars on removal and not.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lihaas (talk • contribs)

"the rules said if the wikisite (this) mentiosn the word terrorism then it has to be cited. just because a reprot doesnt mention the word doesnt revoke its status as a terror attack".

I believe you just contradicted yourself there. We can't have editors going around labelling things as "terrorism" without supporting that labelling with reliable sources. Furthermore, just because some sources label Group X as "terrorists" doesn't mean that everything Group X does counts as "terrorism". ~Asarlaí 01:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding a recent edit... I don't think the use of so-called "anti-terrorist" or "counter-terrorist" forces in a certain incident makes that incident "terrorism". It certainly isn't mentioned here. ~Asarlaí 17:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

What does WTA have to do with anything? Are you seriously asserting that these sources weren't reporting on people who treat this as a terrorist event? Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy, and these incidents clearly fall within the purpose of the criteria. Ray 17:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

why was the lead changed on all the terror years' lists w/o discussion and consensus?

• Wp:Consensus can change.
• why are the attacks for April removed with refernce to some age old discussion instead of this current one?
• WP: Common sense + WP: Ignore all rules

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lihaas (talk • contribs)

Lihaas, the consensus here and on this article is that incidents should only be added if they are backed by reliable sources that call it "terrorism". If "terror" or "terrorist" or "terrorism" isn't mentioned in the source, don't add it. Like I said before...we can't have editors going around labelling whatever they want without reliable sources to back it up. It's very simple. ~Asarlaí 18:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Superfopp, while I agree with the current criteria, I note that WP:WTA does not address inclusion criteria in lists, only the narrative voice of the article as it pertains to labelling - and then the restriction is much harsher on people than it is on incidents or events. Furthermore, I see no such consensus discussion on this page. If Lihaas wishes to open a discussion on the merits of the current criteria, it is his right and privilege to do so. For myself, I will insist that any criteria at which we arrive must be viewpoint-neutral and reasonably objective, while still bearing some resemblance to the popular understanding of the term. Ray 21:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

1. its good to discuss instead of reverting on a whim. so this is nice.

2. WP:Consensus Consensus can change, + WP:Common sense the wikipedia ruling of using the word terrorism is (in my opinion, im sure there are others and thus we debate it out) to refer to group X/people X as terrorists. as per the broader definition of terrorism/terrorists there is an article on that. and also one can see such group as the naxals falling under the WP: Terrorism project. so wikipedia has sanctioned that as terrorism, which means their attacks are not a "guerrilla war"/war/whathaveyou. at least on wikipedia wars are between states, for the most part.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lihaas (talk • contribs)

First of all let me point out that there is no universally agreed definition of "terrorism", and most definitions are quite vague. The current consensus on this article is very simple: incidents should only be added if they are backed by reliable sources that call it "terrorism". However, that simple 'rule-of-thumb' is currently being ignored. Users are adding incidents that could very well be related to domestic disputes and organised crime, with no ideology behind them. They are also adding attacks by paramilitaries against military/police targets, in which no civilians are harmed.

Essentially, you are asking editors to agree on a definition of "terrorism". You are then and expecting that definition to be neutral. To me, that's madness.

~Asarlaí 17:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Also... will editors be allowed to continue ignoring the consensus until a definition is agreed upon (which will undoubtedly take quite a while)? ~Asarlaí 17:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

terrorism doesnt by definition mean it has to be against civilian targets, not sure where you got this from but "in which no civilians were harmed" doesn't mean the attack wasn't. there are bombings that fail, bombings at night (ira/eta) that hurt no one. the groups claiming it are labeled "terrorists." all articles arent going to explicitly mention the word terrorism, because, quite frankly, when perpetrated by such militants/insurgents/non-state actors it precludes the use of the word in the at least the mainstream media. Some common sense is expected too.

that said there are some attacks that could very well be personal disputes (the list of indian flasgs at the beginning of the month come to mind). but generally, until proven otherwise by consensus editors should be allowed to be WP:Bold, not hard to remove. (Lihaas (talk) 22:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

This is not a list of bombings, so please do not add bombings that you personally consider to be terrorism. O Fenian (talk) 12:21, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

This statement is supposed to be part of a constructive debate? According to the page for RAAD they are an affiliation of the PIRA (which was classified as terrorist. This is not opinion, its wikipedia's own stance really.Lihaas (talk) 00:42, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Your argument is wrong on many counts. Firstly Misplaced Pages does not have a stance, that is well known. Secondly the IRA are not classed as a terrorist organisation in the country which the incident took place. Thirdly it is original research by synthesis to claim that because A are classed as "terrorists" and B are related to A that an incident involving B is a "terrorist" incident. Fourthly Misplaced Pages is not a publisher of original thought, if you think this was a terrorist incident then you need to provide a reliable source that says so, not your own opinion. O Fenian (talk) 15:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

not wikipedia's stance on supporting, stance was a wrong word, i agree, i apologize. It is listed and clarified on wikipedia as falling under the scope of terrorism. (Talk:Provisional Irish Republican Army) Misplaced Pages also says "Instead of following every rule, it is acceptable to use common sense." While I'm not advocating this WP:IAR "rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Misplaced Pages..."

That said, i think people get offended by the term "terrorist" (as per WP:Terrorist i dont think that is actually adhered to on wikipedia). it really is the loaded word that make people say this is not so, and this is so. the previous years even had room for failed attacks. (of which the CIRA claimed 1 the day after Newry, for example) Maybe change the name of this list page to something else? "List of non-state attacks, XXXX" Would that sound better? It can accomadate more people. As per my above, i did agree that somethings on here seem to list anyone with a bomb or a pipe bomb. should we have consensus debate to clarify the ground rules? the last time someone changed the lead it was without discussion.

Also the removal of certain stuff like that of the FLNC by another user is really picking hairs. The FLNC spells out its raison d'etre and its past shows it. its surprising they even exist today, so its certainly significant portends if they happen to strike into the 21st century Lihaas (talk) 03:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

If your only argument is that you intend to "ignore all rules" then this discussion is pointless. You cannot just ignore policy any time you want and say "ignore all rules". Either you provide sources, or the incidents do not get added. O Fenian (talk) 08:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

okay reread what i said. i was ecplicitly not advocating that as "ignore all rules." it was an addition to "using common sense" because you cant wait for every article to explicitly mention the words "terror." in circumstances where group X has claimed it and group X is/has been affiliated terror it then becomes "common sense" to include it. you still havent answered the gist of what i was saying above. (im very willing to change define more clearly what to add, something to put on the main page (hidden, w/o publishing for public consumption)

and every addition is cited by WP:RS, is not id be the first to remove it.Lihaas (talk) 06:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

You either provide a source that describes the incident as terrorism, or it does not get added to the list. Also your claim that Republican Action Against Drugs are associated with the Provisional IRA is untrue, the article does not say that at all. O Fenian (talk) 09:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Deadliest incidents in 2010 suggestion

Dead	Injured	Date	Location	Event
105	100+	January 1	Lakki Marwat	2010 Lakki Marwat suicide bombing
59	100+	March 12	Lahore	March 2010 Lahore bombings#12_March
54	117	February 1	Baghdad	1 February 2010 Baghdad bombing

...and so on. 5 are enough--DAI (Δ) 14:42, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Not in a table like this, but a mention on the top can be listed, perhaps. get some consensus first. (2 weeks w/o reply seems like consensus, you cant wait forever.)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lihaas (talk • contribs)

Not terrorist incident

The attack was by Muhammad Hatib, a Palestinian soldier, killing a foreign soldier occupying the Palestinian territories, Hatibs home, therefor the attack was not a terrorist attack as he killed an invading soldier. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:51, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

This more than qualifies under the inclusion criteria on the page, which govern the inclusion of items on the list. We recognize that nationalistic points of view may differ, which is why our inclusion criteria are simple: a RS mentions allegations of terrorism, and the act was carried out by a non-state entity. Ray 21:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Jpost is not a RS in this matter since its an Israeli paper. I'm sure you can find Israeli papers referring to the westbank, Jerusalem and Golan as "Israel", so in certain things they can not be used as sources. A Palestinian killed a soldier that invaded and occupied his land, this was not a terrorist attack in any way. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree w/ your assessment regarding the reliability of the Jerusalem Post, to put it mildly. Neutrality is not a requirement for reliability - only some level of fidelity to factual reporting is needed. You appear to be forum shopping, as we are having the same discussion on Talk:Tapuah junction stabbing. This incident clearly satisfies our inclusion criteria: the action was not undertaken by a state entity, and has been characterized as terrorism in reliable sources. You appear to have a very strong point of view with respect to Israel/Palestine articles. I remind you that Misplaced Pages has a neutrality policy, and strongly suggest that you adhere to it while you edit here. The internet has plenty of other places for you to soapbox. Ray 18:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Jpost is not a RS in this matter since its an Israeli paper.

What? Israeli media is perfectly reliable. If Al Jazeera is the standard for Middle East media, virtually all Israeli papers easily qualify as an RS. Jpost has relationships with the Wall Street Journal FYI. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

oh please, Al Jaz. is a greater standard bearer across the world then "virtuall all Israeli papers." that said, im not arguing with jpost, wall street journal, or even some left paper being RS. regardless of whether you agree to either.

but resorting to attacks on another is not going to help the point.Lihaas

at any rate, why does this quality for inclusion? The Palestinian security forces are recognised by 1. usa, 2. israel too? if "state terrorism" like drone bombings (on civilian targets) dont qualify here, then certainly this doesn't. it is not perpetrated by a group labeled "terrorist" nor is it claimed by them (talk) 22:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

in like measure why not include thsi too

theres not point having 2 different debates. we should merge this and Talk:Tapuah junction stabbing

Attack on PSNI officers working on railway

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/8578622.stm

Does this count as terrorism? The attack was unsuccessful, but the main thing is nobody know who it was yet, so will it count as a terrorist incident? --93.96.175.64 (talk) 00:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

That depends entirely on what reliable sources say. Our inclusion criteria are merely that an incident must be labelled as terrorism and not carried out by a state entity. Our own opinion does not come into it. Ray 03:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

certainly counts, you can see it in the reactions mentions and then couple with newry incidents lately. (although the latter is jsut further proof, not prime proof)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lihaas (talk • contribs)

Belfast bomb

Couple of changes, changed flag to UK to conform with the previous entries in the article. (Besides, NI is still part of the UK) Also changed the injured figure to 1, as one man was blasted off his feet and taken to hospital for shock, although it was minor. Feel free to dispute, just put your reasons here to avoid misunderstanding. :) --Old Marcus (talk) 03:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

All sounds fine, I addressed the fact tag for the claim of responsibility to polish it off. Alastairward (talk) 15:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

yep, your right. my bad ont he flag, in one of the previous years it ahd the northern ireland flag.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lihaas (talk • contribs)

Various IRA entries removed?

Why have some incidents been removed, such as the man who was shot by IRA members, and if I remember correctly, was labeled as terrorism? Seems someone has been a bit over-zealous in the cleanup of this article... --93.96.175.64 (talk) 16:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

That is certainly not beyond the realm of possibility. If you have any such which clearly satisfy the inclusion criteria, feel free to re-add them. Ray 20:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• Unassessed List articles
• Unknown-importance List articles
• WikiProject Lists articles
• Unassessed Crime-related articles
• Unknown-importance Crime-related articles
• Unassessed Terrorism articles
• Mid-importance Terrorism articles
• Terrorism task force articles
• WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
• List-Class Years articles
• Unknown-importance Years articles
• List-Class Years articles of Unknown-importance