Talk:List of terrorist incidents in 2016

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

Disputed inclusion[edit]

I dispute the inclusion of the alleged stabbing on the 17 January in Palestine, described as a "Melee attack". One unidentified person stabbed another unidentified civilian. No terrorist organisation claimed to be responsible. How does that equate to terrorism? Why not just crime? AusLondonder (talk) 08:30, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two things.
1) Ealier in 2015 most of the attacks in the West Bank were added by Israelis who naturally placed an Israeli flag on Israeli settlements, a simple logic for an Israel. A dispute begun when people replaced that with a flag of Palestine, so on Israeli settlements I decided on my own to place two flags, (Israel/State of Palestine) but another dispute begen and the consensus that was reached was that no flags will be on attacks in the West Bank, Gaza or Jerusalem. The State of Palestine doens't have full recognition and therefore not a legal state and so does Israeli presence in the West Bank and Jerusalem. The consensus is here: Talk:List of terrorist incidents, 2015#Flags of Israel and Palestine in Palestinian related incidendt
2) The source in the Otniel incident, states that a "Terrorist" he stabbed the women. And out of the over 100 delibrate attacks, only one was perpetrated by a terror organization (or millitant organization, interprate however your want), all of the attacks were made by lone wolves and "popular terrorism"- acts done by unaffiliated groups or couples. There is an RS and if you still dought the attack, the attacker was cought, something I forgot to update.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 16:37, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Format of the description[edit]

@Rossbawse: @84.101.141.18: @92.134.228.44: @Kristijh:

I think I should note the format I use for the description which is used in over half of the incidents in the article. So in order to have a consistant list, I think you should adopt this format. If you think you can improve it, feel free to offer.

Please try to avoid passive tense and write it all in past tense. Do not write "three civilians are killed in shooting", write: "gunmen shot at civilians, killing three"

Do it by this order:

  • describe the assailent. If he is a suicide bomber, start with "A suicide bomber detonated his explosives/blew himself".
  • write the target. If a source says "attack on military convoy/policemen/civilians" so write "...on a millitary convoy/at civilians/rammed over a pedestrian" etc. If you a spesific target, such as "German tourists" or "Shia civilians" etc. write it it.
  • write the location. I think that the city/town/village/municipality or district (if locality is not known) is enough, no need to mention the country, you already noting in the country in the location column. If there is a significant spesific location, such as a mosque, a school, a police station and if there is a famous location such as "Sultan Ahmed Mosque", add them.
  • if there are important detiles, such as "during morning prayers" or "during Shia feast", add them.
  • write the casualties in the format of: first fatalities, then injuries "killing five, wounding four" or "or five people were killed in the blast and twenty other wounded"
  • Then write is someone claimed responsibility or not. If there is a motive, note it.

Thank you--Bolter21 (talk to me) 09:27, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

NO ACTION
No consensus on merge. (non-admin closure) Spirit Ethanol (talk) 13:39, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Following two AFD's in two months (one closed as no consensus, other non-admin keep) I propose January 2016 Paris police station attack be merged into List of terrorist incidents, January–June 2016 (where it is already covered). I think that the content of the article can easily be explained in the context of the terrorist incident list, and that the article is of a reasonable size that the merging of this article will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. Other far more significant attacks are already covered exclusively in the article. AusLondonder (talk) 08:01, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose: 12000 bytes is a size that is quite long to be integrated into this list. I do agree that some significant attacks could have their own page created but that's not a reason why this one should be deleted. Wykx (talk) 14:57, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose: After the unambiguous last AfD I wonder why there has to be another try to reduce or destroy this article by a user who unsuccessfully tried this before in the AfD discussion. There is no reason to lead a 3rd AfD discussion in another way. I agree with Wykx. And this article is not only big enough, but it is about an unique incident which clearly justifies a standalone article.--Gerry1214 (talk) 22:31, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - There seems to be a substantial amount of information covered in this article that makes it notable enough. Also, I find it really fishy that the user who suggested this is the same user who started the last AfD AND suggested this hours after said AfD was closed. Parsley Man (talk) 23:21, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The day after the discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/January 2016 Paris police station attack (2nd nomination) was closed by User:Onel5969 as Keep, Auslander, the editor who brought the article to AFD proposes this merger. Merge is not a remedy for an AFD the conclusion of which an editor DOESNOTLIKE. Moreover, this merge proposal is an unconstructive and uncollegial move by an editor much given to WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:WIKIHOUNDING. oppose because like other items in this list and similar lists, this incidnet was judged notable by editors at AFD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:43, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral: I don't know the significance of this incident on France but I can only assume, since France is currently in a period of radical Islamist attacks, it was significant, unlike other countries, where incidents like that are not significant at all (Nigeria, Iraq, Turkey etc.) I"ll support whatever the users will decide.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 15:28, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This feels increasingly like a 3rd AFD, but, to assess longterm "impact" on France (not something required by WP:GNG,) Here: [1] is Mark Lilla, on March 10 in the New York Review of Books discussing this attack in detail and as part of " a steady series of Islamist terrorist attacks, some dramatic, some less so, that have changed the political psychology of the country."E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:12, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Not doneE.M.Gregory (talk) 09:51, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Attacks on military personnel[edit]

Should these realistically be described as "terrorist" attacks when the target of the attack is militarily legitimate? I can understand condemning attacks perpetrated by the likes of Daesh as such, due to their overtly sectarian and eliminationist motivations (particularly in the latter case when it comes to Sunnis who don't subscribe to Wahhabi-takfirism), but otherwise describing militant attacks on military personnel as "terroristic" seems to be decidedly subjective. Kyle renner (talk) 23:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to propose that all attacks or operations targeting military personnel in the context of respective wars or insurgencies listed here be removed, provided that the perpetrators aren't overtly sectarian or otherwise eliminationist, in the sense that Daesh and other militant factions adhering to the Wahhabi-takfiri ideology are known to be. This means removing examples talking about Palestinians targeting the army of occupation in the West Bank, or say PKK operations against the Turkish Army per the ongoing fighting since last summer. I see no reason why these kinds of events should be classified as "terroristic" when they are militarily legitimate attacks or operations. Kyle renner (talk) 23:27, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
God damn it not again.... I too sick of explaining this. Even though they say "terrorism has no definition", most scholers, as well as sources, agree that terrorist attacks are not only against civilians, but also against "Non-combatants".
I fail to see how Israeli occupation soldiers and occupation police are "non-combatants" by any reasonable or remotely sane standard. Occupying and hostile, belligerent "soldiers" (in quotation marks because they're the worst soldiers in the Levant) in uniform, with assault rifles. Not "non-combatants" by any measure at all, unless you're Jewish and nuts. Kyle renner (talk) 08:28, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I usually use the Global Terrorism Database definition of terrorism.
Soldiers, and occupation police, are not remotely "civilian" or non-combatant. How it is that only Israelis, only Jews, claim that their soldiers are "civilians" if the assault rifles they're wearing are slung over their shoulders? Kyle renner (talk) 08:32, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Criterion I: The act must be aimed at attaining a political, economic, religious, or social goal.
Criterion II: There must be evidence of an intention to coerce, intimidate, or convey some other message to a larger audience (or audiences) than the immediate victims. (If met with citeria III, criteria I and II can be expressed by the perpetrator, ISIS for example.)
Criterion III: The action must be outside the context of legitimate warfare activities.
More typically Israeli conflation of people who're acting out of nationalist principles with the very worst of the international Jihadi movement like Daesh or Al Qaeda. It's too bad Wikipedia doesn't have something to cite editors for shamelessly lying on the talk pages! Kyle renner (talk) 08:32, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And if the source I use, say it is a terrorist attack, or there is obvious indication this is a terrorist attack (ISIS, al-Qaeda, delibrate Palestinian attacks against non-combatants, etc.)--Bolter21 (talk to me) 18:27, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll say it one more time: operations targeting soldiers are not and should not be defined as "terrorism" by any reasonable standard. I see that you continue to try and put the "Palestinians are like ISIS" falsehood into play, despite reality and all evidence that exists when it comes to what's been going on. Typical. Kyle renner (talk) 08:32, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, millitary operations with an imidiate strategical and tactical outcome should not be considered terroristic. For example, if ISIS attack a town, controled by Assad's forces, in order to capture it, it is not a terrorist incident. But ISIS's attack on Deir Azur ealier this year also included the massacre of hundreds of soldiers and civilians as well as the use of suicide bombings. Rushing toward an armed soldier, sationed in a checkpoint, without possesing any threat to you, while not being part of any recognized army, and attacking him with a knife, without any strategical consicuenses, is not a millitary operation.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 10:04, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, any operation or act that targets armed belligerents, and that can be considered a militarily legitimate act, is not an act of "terror". Daesh is overtly sectarian (unlike the Palestinians, to say the least) and so as a result this sectarian eliminationism is embedded in each and every action of that organization when it comes to targeting everyone who's not a Wahhabi-takfirist.
Palestinians, as I said, are not sectarian and are not acting out of sectarian or eliminationist principles, despite the repeated lies of Netanyahu and the Israeli propaganda machine. Palestinian actions in the occupied West Bank are in fact inherently "reactionary" and inherently defensive as well, in the context of being a general response to the Israeli occupier and aggressor.
Stabbing, shooting, running over, or beating the head in of a hostile soldier operating as a part of a hostile and belligerent military occupation is not "terrorism" regardless of who does it. The fact that it's largely random Palestinians who for the most part are unaffiliated with the military of the Palestinian state only goes to show that the occupation is more abusive and brutalizing then one might think.
Not terrorism, even if there's no greater strategic plan and the action is strictly rooted in emotion and a desire for revenge. IDF, "Border Police", Shin Bet, Shabak, and those "settlers" who take it upon themselves to attack or shoot at Palestinians, or otherwise attempt to destroy Palestinian property, are all viable targets in the occupied West Bank and as a result are no "innocent victims of terror" when they take a knife to the face or get run over by a car or get shot in the head. Kyle renner (talk) 17:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Although most attacks were aimed against security forces, most of the fatalities in the current phase of violance were unarmed civilians, a not so small number were within the greenline, not to mention a generally large number of attacks within the green line. Attacking a member of an army, is not autonmatically a millitary operation. The PKK conduct terrorist attacks against Turkish soldiers in a very milliteristic ways, but there are enough definitions from reliable scholers that define a non-combatant, regadless of if he is armed or not, as a victim of a terror attack. There were incidents in the past, when militants attacked other militants in a way that is accepted as a terrorist attack. If the killing of the target, does not benefit you in battle, it is not a legitimate military operation. A Palestinian who stab a soldier, know he will get shot and will probably die and there are not battles going on. Not every attack against Israeli soldiers is a terrorist attack by the way, there were doznes of incidents I skipped. When Palestinians injured soldiers in clashes, or when Israeli soldiers attempted to arrest Palestinians who waited and attacked them, those are not terrorist attacks, but a guard that you stab, without any battle going on, is not a legitimate military target. A desire for revenge is a classic motive for terrorism. Afghani Taliban revenging American operations etc.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 17:43, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I too share the concern that this page includes guerrilla attacks on military occupying forces, but does not include militant attacks on civilians. Especially since the threshold of "military significance" already reflects a POV that legitimizes activities performed by uniformed soldiers (and I do not mean to imply that this is only the case for the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict events listed here). This strikes me as a sign that the definition of terrorism being applied here waffles between being too wide and too narrow. This enables bias in the editing of the list. Jazzcowboy (talk) 19:12, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And I say, enough talking, list me one incident that should be removed and we"ll see if it really has no place in the list. I have been observing this article since last July and I constantly added incidents between July and March. Through this period, many editors rose their 'concerns' about certain incidents but they managed to remove only one disputed incident from the list. So you are maybe the tenth person to speak about certain incidents that should be removed. Please state a spesific one to begin with and we"ll see if there is insufficient evidence (including sources) for it's listing. Auslondonder brought an incident that should have been deleted and saw there is enough evidence for it to be there, but I agree there are probably incidents here (mainly in Turkey) that are not really terrorist attacks.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 19:23, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually; it is absurd to list "Unknown gunman shot an Israeli soldier with a sniper rifle near Hakvasim Junction in South Hebron hills, on the southern tip of the West Bank, hitting his leg" or "Unknown gunman shot an Israeli female soldier near the Cave of the Patriarchs, Hebron. The shots came from surrounding residential buildings" as "act of terrorism". AFAIK, they are not, according to international law. Huldra (talk) 23:12, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Two things. The first is that recently (Somewhere last month or before) a self-operating group was found that was responsible for four shooting incidents in the Hebron area, this means there are four incidents whose perpetrator is now known. I didn't add this to the article out of lazyness but now when you mention it, I will go and update the new ones. Regardless of that, what other reason can there be to shoot an IDF soldier and flee? Enlight me please.
Second thing, There are probably more than a hundred incidents with "unknown" are listed here, in recent lists and not only in this article. The Global Terrorism Archive as well as the Johnston's Archive have incidents where the perpetrator is not known.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 20:27, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, attacks on strictly military targets during as part of an ongoing violent conflict, are widely viewed as not being terrorism, and as such should not be present on this article even if mainstream media related to the victims takes the liberty of declaring it "terrorism". Also Bolter, blogs by non-notable non-scholars, aren't reliable sources. Sepsis II (talk) 00:24, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Global Terrorism Database is very far from a blog. If you go to Definitions of Terrorism, you'll see that many agree terrorism is not only an attack on civilians.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 18:25, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article contains numerous acts of war that have nothing to do with terrorism, such as battles, ambushes and landmine explosions. Those entries shall be removed.--Catlemur (talk) 17:26, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When? InedibleHulk (talk) 19:59, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should this article be split up?[edit]

In my opinion, this page getting far too large. Wikipedia policy states that an article that is larger than 100 kB should usually be divided, though this guideline applies less strongly to lists. However, this article is already over 140 kB, and still growing rapidly.
To ameliorate this size issue, I propose that it be split into three articles: List of terrorist incidents in January 2016, List of terrorist incidents in February 2016, and List of terrorist incidents in March 2016. Further articles would be created in the coming months, starting from List of terrorist incidents in April 2016.
Each of these articles would be around 50 kB, which is a much more reasonable size. In addition, dividing the article by month seems more natural than dividing it by six-monthly periods. Thoughts? Should we split this article up, or not? Chessrat (talk,contributions) 21:02, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lists can indeed be long. List_of_aircraft_accidents_and_incidents_resulting_in_at_least_50_fatalities is 300 kB. I would keep it on 6 months for the time being, the reason is that it is easier to find an information. Wykx (talk) 21:24, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Wykx.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 11:57, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of terrorist incidents, January–June 2016. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 17:54, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 4, 2016[edit]

It seems that there are several attacks in Iraq (April 4, 2016), should there be a new article stating "2016 Iraq Attacks," should we combine these at the end of the day? Please let me know, I'd be more than happier to contribute. --William Phoenix 18:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

No, because as far as I can tell, those are not prominant and not significant. Attacks like that occur on a weekly basis, it's just that not all of them reach mainstream media.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 18:35, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Acts of War[edit]

Is it necessary to include acts of war in this article? They do not fit the generally accepted definition of terrorism in my view. I'm think about acts related to the Syrian civil war, the Second Libyan Civil War, Iraqi Civil War (2014–present) and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict Could they not be included in articles relating to those wars? Many of these supposed terrorist incidents are not described in reliable sources as such, so the inclusion amounts to WP:OR. AusLondonder (talk) 15:38, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bolter21: An example of what? AusLondonder (talk) 02:42, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am eager to find incident that are not supposed to be in the list but there are so many for me to individually look at. If you say there are acts of war (I assume such as offensives or others) that are not in the context of terrorism, I would be happy if you individually state each one so we could have a conversation about them and better understand what should and shouldn't be on the list. I initially oppsed the inclusion of the al-Shabaab attack on the Somali millitary base (El Adde attack) because it was too vague. I belive there might be other incidents but I stopped tracking every edit in the article as well as editing it. So we could maybe start with an example of an incident that shouldn't be here?--Bolter21 (talk to me) 07:27, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One incident would be the suicide bombing that took place on the 3rd of January at Camp Speicher, Iraq. Responsibility for this incident was claimed by Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. This was clearly an act of war against security forces. AusLondonder (talk) 07:57, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this incident is complicated. First of all, the main territory controlled by ISIS at the time was very far away from Tirkit, more than a hundred kilometers away, so it didn't had any immidiate strategical advantage. Secondly, the attack also targeted a police training site, furthermore, this incident apears to have a sectarial motive since ISIS alleged it was against Shi'ite Muslims. And the incident is also listed Wm. Robert Johnston's "Selected terrorist attacks and related incidents worldwide, Part 4: 2016-present"--Bolter21 (talk to me) 08:20, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Link to individual incidents[edit]

Would it be possible to provide another column in which the pages corresponding to specific incidents can be linked, for further viewing? Sheepythemouse (talk) 21:29, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious on your opinion of the Ethiopia killings, http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/19/africa/ethiopia-border-raids/

Not sure if this would be considered terrorism by the page guidelines.

Wolverinesblow (talk) 03:52, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May 1st[edit]

Are these two spate attacks? I linked a source that said 11 are killed, someone else linked a source stating 33 were killed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beejsterb (talk • contribs) 21:36, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This has been resolved. Ignore. Beejsterb (talk) 00:22, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To be added May[edit]

Hey!

Someone add these: [2] [www.cbc.ca/news/world/egypt-explosion-1.3526419]

Possible copyright vio[edit]

Which copyright protects one or two sentence fragments/extracts? Please provide source before restoring.--Gerry1214 (talk) 15:00, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Content was copied from the source websites by user: Beejsterb. The violations were picked up by a bot. All content on the web is copyright, and we can't copy it verbatim as it's a violation of copyright law to do so. — Diannaa (talk) 15:07, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not into English/American copyright. But in Germany a one or two sentence extract/excerpts in a list are generally not subject to copyright, because they don't reach "threshold of originality". Your acting makes the list unusable. Then better delete it completely. I'm outta here.--Gerry1214 (talk) 15:11, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, before I leave ;), I'd really like to know which copyright applies here (English, American...?), and which legal situation justifies this actions. --Gerry1214 (talk) 18:40, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The English Wikipedia is subject to the copyright laws of the United States, as the servers are located in that country. Under the terms of the Berne Convention, literary works are subject to copyright whether they are tagged as such or not. No registration is required, and no copyright notice is required. So please always assume that all material you find online is copyright. Exceptions include works of the US Government and material specifically released under license. Even then, proper attribution is required. Please see the policy page at WP:copyrights for more information on copyright law and how it applies to Wikipedia. — Diannaa (talk) 19:10, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, after this is clarified I would like to bring fair use into play, which can be found in short form under: Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright#What is fair use? I think, using single sentences from newspaper articles in a list is clearly covered by fair use principle. It is comparable e.g. to thumbnails used in a search engine. The 4 questions in the FAQ article can be answered: It is "non-profit/news reporting/educational", it is "relatively unoriginal", it is just the "minimum" (a "teaser" sentence), and it "doesn't hurt" the authors at Iraqinews, but "helps" them as they possibly get more traffic on their website from users who want to know more about the incidents.--Gerry1214 (talk) 21:14, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fair use is only available when there's no free alternative. In this case there is a free alternative: prose that the user writes him/herself. This is possible to do; I did it myself with the last three additions by this user, but when I realized the scope of the problem I opted for removal instead. Our copyright policy is quite clear: We are not allowed to add copyright material to this website, and we don't make exceptions based on our opinion of whether or not the copyright holder will mind, or whether or not we expect to get caught. — Diannaa (talk) 23:09, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So we obviously agree that fair use applies here, even if we disagree if it should be used or not. Then there is no reason to delete the content and block the user. Sure there is a template that indicates the situation that the content should be paraphrased if possible or this could further be discussed on the talk page. But there is no need to use any kind of force, because fair use is an accepted legal principle under U.S. law that we have to respect, and a copyright violation is clearly ruled out.--Gerry1214 (talk) 23:24, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violations need to be removed immediately, however, it is equally important to preserve the information. Is it possible to give a single editor access to removed content to extract event names/dates/refs for re-write? Other options much tougher (e.g. archive 1, 2). Baking Soda (talk) 23:33, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to user: Beejsterb for the latest additions. I checked a few and found them ok. The question remains how to continue with the deleted material. I suggest to restore it due to fair use. Any comments/other proposals?--Gerry1214 (talk) 14:09, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I already explained, the removed content does not qualify for fair use. It has to be completely re-written. — Diannaa (talk) 19:56, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Will the format I offered (in the second discussion in this talkpage) and used (until February) work?--Bolter21 (talk to me) 20:00, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As it's a content decision (not an administrative matter), it's not my decision to make, since I am here in my capacity as a Wikipedia administrator. My focus here is to ensure that all the posts comply with copyright law and the policies of this website. — Diannaa (talk) 20:18, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Was this comment to me?--Bolter21 (talk to me) 20:30, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. — Diannaa (talk) 00:28, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
..."the removed content does not qualify for fair use"... Excuse me, why? Because you postulate it, or is there any valid argument? --Gerry1214 (talk) 21:50, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please refer to the non-free content policy, a Wikipedia policy with legal considerations. We can't use copyright prose when a there is a readily available freely licensed alternative – prose that we write ourselves. NFCC #1 says, "No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." — Diannaa (talk) 00:26, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem removed[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 15:07, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Will the format I used and offered others to use (It is reflected in the first two sections of the list and detailed on the second discussion in this talkpage) will work?--Bolter21 (talk to me) 15:25, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The user responsible for deleting the material obviously seems to be not interested how to continue with the article, (s)he seems to be satisfied with leaving "scorched earth". The user who did this is blocked indefinetely without giving him a chance to correct this, and - to my knowledge - without asking him why he did this - maybe in his country the legal situation/jurisdiction is different, as it is in my country. In my opinion, the "problem" is definitely not "removed". This can not be the way to deal with such a thing.--Gerry1214 (talk) 18:37, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Although I partially agree.. I suggest not using the langauge "(s)he seems to be satisfied". Anyway, Beejsterb needs to be unbanned immidiately.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 18:52, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I regret this (and cross it out), but as a frequent reader of this useful list I am dissatisfied with the situation.--Gerry1214 (talk) 19:09, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on List of terrorist incidents, January–June 2016. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 23:07, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should this be added?[edit]

My guess is no, but I am not 100% sure. http://www.iraqinews.com/iraq-war/peshmerga-announces-killing-140-isis-elements-battles-al-khazir-northeast-mosul/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beejsterb (talk • contribs) 23:08, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peshmerga is a non-state group but it technically a paramilitary wing of a recognized autonomous region, so already this is a problem (since there's a consesus all incidents are made by non-state actors and Peshmerga is more of a semi-state actor). Secodnly, Peshmerga is conducting operations near Mosul right now in attempts to put pressure on ISIS (as news reports say). Although I think these deaths are part of an attempt to capture positions near Mosul but even if Peshmerga just decided to lauch rockets and shell ISIS without a plan on the near future to make millitary gains, all actions against ISIS, especially in the frontline, can be interprated as acts for attrition. I don't see any political/social/religious motive behind shelling of ISIS, it is most likely to be in an attepmt to capture positions or to cause attrition. Both ways are in the context of a "millitary action" and not a terrorist act. So the answer is no.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 22:16, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Part of an ongoing conflict, against combatants, carried out by the military forces of Iraqi Kurdistan, basically a de facto state at this point. Could potentially be terroristic (though I highly doubt it considering the great number of IS forces killed, and the nature of the Syrian War), but I certainly wouldn't classify it as "non-state". Darkside Of Aquarius (talk) 18:34, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article?[edit]

44 people were killed in attacks in and around Baghdad on June 9, 2016. Should an article be made? Although none were killed, soldiers from New Zealand and Australia were involved, so I am not sure if this would be an article that would be notable enough to be made or not?

Overinflated[edit]

This article is overinflated with various incidents, most having a very low notability. We simply cannot list physically all terror events on one list. In order to make some criteria for inclusion, i propose to start by listing only those terror events with mortal casualties - this would reduce the list by more than half and make some balance, since some regions of the world are covered in detail, while others (like Syria and Iraq) are provided only in relevance to most severe terror incidents.GreyShark (dibra) 10:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ususally, a fatatlity is not the thing that make a terror attack significant. Stab a setter in the West Bank and no one bets an eye, storm an office with a fake charge in Paris and everyone looses their minds. Terrorism is not about death, actually, there are very significant terrorist incidents that don't reach international media, such as massive vandalism and even rape. Terrorism, although having very very vague borders, is generaly and usually an act motivated by an ideology/religion/social goal that harm people in an illegal way and usually blamed at non-states, as state-terrorism is a much more complicated topic. With that, the number of casualties is not the thing to determine how bad an attack is, it is the impact. 130 killed in Khan Bani Saad in Iraq last year, but the impact wasn't great, 130 people killed in Paris and the impact is still here. Therefore, I don't think that casualties is the thing that supposed to determine which attacks should be included. When I used to update the list, I only used sources such as Reuters, AFP, AP and RT, so the list wasn't that big, but now editors are adding attacks that don't reach western media and you realise how many there are. My initial solution is to highlight those with high casualties, but we saw how there was no talking about over 80 dying in Nigeria while a partially failed attack in the Netherlands got the whole story. Always remember in terrorism, that the main idea of it is in the name - Terror. (not deaths).--Bolter21 (talk to me) 10:18, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The complaint of overinflation of the list should be made to the terrorists themselves. Some may find it disturbing, others simply call it reality. If the list destroys any illusions about this planet and its (certain) inhabitants, it serves its purpose. ;) I welcome it that the list is as complete as possible, as long as the sources are reliable.--Gerry1214 (talk) 13:34, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is a "List of terrorist incidents" not a "List of notable terrorist incidents", although you can make one. Ill admit, as one of the current main editors of this list, adding in all of these incidents gets tiring, and there are so many that I simply do not have time to include. Either, more people need to help out, or I will get overwhelmed. 2Beejsterb (talk) 22:16, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would love to help, but I am still recovering from my times in the list. Too bad new editors come and get banned over copyrights or cursing an admin..--Bolter21 (talk to me) 22:56, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, and grossly so. This article is now at 400kb, recommended size for an article is 100kb. There are clearly so many incidents that listing them all is of little encyclopedic value. A simple means of reduction would be to either only include those incidents deemed notable enough to justify their own article or set a minimum number of fatalities. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 05:28, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Or only list verifiably labeled terrorist attacks that happened during these months, like the title suggests. It's not a crazy idea. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:20, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All entries with "unknown" in the Perpetrator field should go, as we can't know an unknown person or group's motive. There are hundreds of those, here for no reason. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:55, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There were thousands of terrorist attacks in the past whose perpetrator is not known. Here's an example from last year.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 20:13, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's an example of shells landing on a street. Not even a supposed motive. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:11, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Honour killings[edit]

Some sources list honour killings as terrorism. I am pretty sure that they are simply domestic violence. Anyone think that we should include them? There are lots.

Give an example--Bolter21 (talk to me) 11:23, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.metronews.ca/news/world/2016/06/17/pakistani-woman-throws-acid-at-man-who-refused-to-marry-her.html
Not terrorism at all. Terrorism is usually backed by ideology or religious (or religious ideology).--Bolter21 (talk to me) 15:46, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No honour killings, no executions, no grazing disputes, no dead soldiers, no plain-ass murder. Just terrorism. It's simple, but every year, these articles fail to grasp it. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:23, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Terrorist incidents may very well be both executions and killings of soldiers. Could you stop the monthly ramble about how the list include non-terrorist incidents but always lack the intention to actually challenge certain incidents individually. User:AusLondonder tried with one incident but failed and gave up.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 10:08, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I stopped last November. I don't blame anyone for giving up. You're delusional, stubborn and devote way more time to screwing these up than anyone can to fixing them. Is this called a terrorist incident by any reliable source? This? This? A hundred others here?
You seem to think you own these articles, and they're immune from the verifiability policy. If that makes you happy, be happy, but don't be proud. These are garbage lists. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I actually stopped adding incidents to this article on February. I just don't trust people to remove incidents without a discussion, and no one is understanding that every individual incident is different and you need to go one by one. You can't just say "all of these and all of those need to be removed and if you disagree that's a garbage list". I had the fear that people will add non-terrorist incidents when a few editors started adding incidents in January but I didn't had the time or patience to go one by one, althouhg I managed to find some incidents, all of them from Turkey, where users added a clash between Kurdish and Turkish forces as "terrorist incident" although there is no source for an intentional attack but just clashes in contested cities. There were some suicide bombings by ISIS against millitary personal that accured during battles against forces that were at the moument fighting ISIS within or outside contested cities and I removed what I saw. Go and search for an incident you want to remove and we"ll see if there is a need to remove it. If you don't want to, don't come here once in a month and cry that the list is garbage, that's not really a constructive argument.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 20:10, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are hundreds. Talking to you about each one would take decades, and you know it. Simply checking the "Does anyone call this incident terrorism?" box is way more efficient. Find a source that does, it stays. Don't, it doesn't. Verifiability works fine for many, many other decent lists on this site. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:15, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And again, November wasn't a month ago. If someone else complains to you every month, that's on you. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:21, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I meant in general, not spesifically you.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:28, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that indicates people generally don't like it. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:57, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Have you ever stepped a foot in Israel-Palestine related articles? People don't like ANYTHING there. That's not the point, and your behavior here is distruptive.--Bolter21 (talk to me)
Of course it was. The article shouldn't continue to suck this way. But don't worry, I'm done till October. Carry on keeping everything your way. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:07, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I barely edit this article but whatever.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 22:09, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your User Page says you've updated it numerous times, and you just stopped me from fixing the glaring lie at the beginning. So whatever indeed. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:16, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Barely touched it since Feburary.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 22:54, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New topic sentence[edit]

I've changed it to "This is a timeline of attacks by violent non-state actors for political or unknown motives which took place in the first half of 2016, including terrorist incidents."

This is easier than having a separate drawn-out discussion with Bolter21 about every one of the hundreds of cases here where something isn't called terrorism in the source, or clearly has no known motive. The best solution would be only listing terroristic acts, like the title says, but that's not going to happen, is it? This is the next-best. Every single shooting in Iraq or Syria by a non-uniformed killer can stay, but Wikipedia doesn't look like it has no idea what terrorism is.

Fair enough? InedibleHulk (talk) 21:12, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This objection doesn't work. There are a lot of mafia murders in New York City, often using guns. By this logic, we should presume every shooting there is a mafia hit. Stick with what's verifiable, not what you think is obvious. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:51, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And this one is just trying to bog it down. This game's fucking rigged to take forever, so I'll let this list stay looking like it was compiled by idiots. Till October, anyway. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:56, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are really no active terrorist organizations in New York. If someone shoots a police officer in a place such as Fallujah, Iraq, where a terrorist organization like ISIS are very active, a reader will likely suspect it as being committed by ISIS, therefore it is a suspected terrorist attack. Lots of these attacks are claimed by ISIS in their online magazine, but I unfortunately do not speak Arabic, and would rather not be looking around a terrorist-run magazine. A lot of incidents posted here are suspected terrorism incidents, and since it takes so long for an incident to be confirmed a terrorist attack after an investigation (and may not even be reported by the media), we leave it here as a suspected terrorist attack. Beejsterb (talk) 03:42, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case, it should be made clear that these include these editorial suspicions along with actual terrorism. It wouldn't make the practice any less against the spirit of WP:NPOV or WP:OR, but it'd at least be honest. And you don't need to learn Arabic to learn about ISIS. It's slanted, sure, but no more than its enemies' stuff leans the other way. Helps to see the wider picture. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:45, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, I never knew that they had an English version, not that I would still read it. I'd rather not read terrorist propaganda. Also, ISIS also claims attacks on their telegraph network, which I have no access to. Anyways, I think you could add something like that in the article. It would probably fit best in the Guidelines section or as a notation somewhere. Beejsterb (talk) 21:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Any problems with "This is a timeline of suspected terrorist incidents..."? And have you ever felt bad about browsing Hulu, NBC or The Weather Channel just because their parent is somewhat evil (and hired the only man convicted of trying to build a death ray)? Judge Dabiq on its own merits, I suggest. But if you'd rather not, that's fine. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:34, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Split?[edit]

I know the idea of splitting this article was brought up in March and decided against, but at the end of June this article ended up being nearly 500 kB and the 14th-longest article in the English Wikipedia. I don't see any reason at this point not to switch this and subsequent articles to quarterly timeframes, considering this article actually crashed Firefox the first time I tried to load it today. I would undertake the split myself but there's probably some guideline at WikiProject Terrorism establishing the six-month timeframe, though I haven't found it.  — TORTOISEWRATH 07:43, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article shouldn't even be split into 6 month blocks, it should be for a full calendar year. It needs to be either reduced (see above) or split based on criteria other than time period. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 05:53, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kristijh (talk) 18:01, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rife with Original Research[edit]

In each month's list there should be a column in which we list the RS(s) that declare (or debate) whether the event is in fact terrorism. As it stands, a casual perusal of the months' lists suggests we are making a lot of those judgment calls. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:00, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • NewsAndEventsGuy (talk · contribs) I've suggested at a user's talk page this should go to WP:NORN. It's a real mess. Nothing should be here without clearly reliable sources, and the type of source we used will vary according to whether it is confirmed (which would need some sort of official source) or suspected. Right now no one can tell which is what. Doug Weller talk 18:09, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but I don't plan to work on it personally. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:53, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: terrorist incidents list criteria[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of terrorist incidents#RfC: List criteria. – Levivich 17:58, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge[edit]

After cleaning up the separate pages for each month to comply with the inclusion criteria determined by this RfC, the individual lists are so short that there is no need to have separate ones for each month. I propose that the lists for the months be merged into a single list for the year. TompaDompa (talk) 13:53, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead with the merge. TompaDompa (talk) 12:30, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_2016&oldid=1208305686"