| Revision as of 07:26, 19 May 2014 editLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,302,385 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:List of Islamic terrorist attacks/Archive 1) (bot← Previous edit |
Revision as of 01:46, 20 May 2014 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,302,385 editsm Archiving 5 discussion(s) to Talk:List of Islamic terrorist attacks/Archive 1, Talk:List of Islamic terrorist attacks/Archive 2) (botNext edit → |
| Line 6: |
Line 6: |
|
| algo = old(31d) |
|
| algo = old(31d) |
|
| archive = Talk:List of Islamic terrorist attacks/Archive %(counter)d |
|
| archive = Talk:List of Islamic terrorist attacks/Archive %(counter)d |
|
| counter = 1 |
|
| counter = 2 |
|
| maxarchivesize = 70K |
|
| maxarchivesize = 70K |
|
| archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}} |
|
| archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}} |
| Line 16: |
Line 16: |
|
<blockquote> |
|
<blockquote> |
|
<nowiki> |
|
<nowiki> |
|
==Vandalism by Apologists== |
|
|
|
|
|
massive vandalism by apologists has been undone,removing terror incidents citing that they are described as done by muslims and not by islamists or done by islamists and not by muslims sounds naive.] (]) 10:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Don't call it vandalism when it's not. Don't call me an apologist when I'm not. Engage on the talk page like a normal editor and discuss the items individually. Please try to learn how things are done here, because you're heading for serious trouble if you don't.— ] (]) 21:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Deletion request turned down== |
|
|
note that there has been a good discussion on all the terror attacks listed and the result is '''keep''', don't remove them by getting emotional.] (]) 10:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:An AfD discussion ending in "keep" is not an endorsement of the contents of the article. Please take some time to learn your way around at Misplaced Pages before making such weirdly aggressively confident statements about things you don't yet understand.— ] (]) 21:24, 18 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==May 7, 2013== |
|
|
No one claimed responsibility for this attack and the Taliban specifically denied that they did it, hence both motivation and perpetrators are unknown. |
|
|
|
|
|
<blockquote> |
|
|
<nowiki> |
|
|
*{{flagicon|Pakistan}} May 7, 2013. – ]. In a wave of pre-election ] a ], at a rally for a candidate of the ], a pro-taliban religious party, killed at least 15 people and injured more than 40 including an election candidate.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.newsdaily.com/article/c8a7ee4ed5c17baa0b8a2d82b1902706/bomb-kills-five-wounds-pakistan-vote-candidate |title=Bombs kill 15 on Pakistan campaign trail |publisher=NewsDaily |accessdate=May 9, 2013}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.dw.de/bomb-hits-pakistani-political-party-supportive-of-taliban/a-16795912 |title=Bomb hits Pakistani political party supportive of Taliban |publisher=DW.DE |date=January 31, 2012 |accessdate=May 9, 2013}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.durangoherald.com/article/20130507/API/1305070559/Bomb-targeting-candidate-kills-5-in-Pakistan |title=The Durango Herald 05/07/2013 | Bombing connected to election kill 18 in Pakistan |publisher=Durangoherald.com |accessdate=May 9, 2013}}</ref> |
|
|
</nowiki> |
|
|
</blockquote> |
|
|
— ] (]) 21:06, 18 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== stop edit war and focus on criteria== |
|
|
The edit warring must stop. If needed I will request full protection. Please both of you cut it out. Focus on a discussion here about the inclusion criteria - for now I see two versions being promoted 1) acts perpetrated by groups that are called Islamists in Rs, regardless of the particulars of the motivation for a given attack 2) acts carried out by any group, whether called Islamist or not - where the stated motivation was an Islamist political or religious goal. I'm sure there are other inclusion criteria but those are the rough boundaries I'd say. So please, make a case here. - what are inclusion criteria?--] (]) 22:24, 18 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Don't accuse me of edit-warring, oh Jedi. There's nothing for me to cut out. The stated inclusion criteria are: "{{xt|Islamic terrorism consists of terror attacks by Islamic fundamentalists to further a perceived Islamic religious or political cause.}}" This is a stupid article to have, but if we're going to have it, at least that criterion is objective and can be used to objectively retain or remove material. Your first proposed criterion is not tenable because even Islamists do things for various reasons other than Islamic religious or political causes, e.g. if their country is occupied and they're engaged in a military action against the occupying forces. Your second is pretty much fine. The acts must be terrorist as well, so e.g. attacks on military targets by military groups don't count even if done by Islamists and even if called terrorism by the targets, e.g. the Syrian or Chinese governments.— ] (]) 22:53, 18 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::those criteria are too vague. As you can see from the edit warring others disagree. I haven't yet formed an opinion but would appreciate your more clear statement of criteria and linkage of same to RS that build similar lists. So plz bring evidence... Thanks --] (]) 23:17, 18 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::No, "others" don't disagree. One single editor, blocked mere hours after his previous block for violating a topic ban on India and Pakistan (and well on his way to AE regarding ARBPIA and the inevitable permaban), disagrees. Furthermore this editor not only refuses to engage on talk page, he thinks it's OK to delete sections from talk page and accuse other editors of being apologists and vandals. If you think the criteria are too vague propose some better ones, but really, I think you're making too much out of one disruptive editor's opinions here. Also, it's my opinion that it's impossible to define criteria, which is why the list obviously should be deleted. Since it's not likely to be, at least we should have criteria we can check against sources, which we kind of do.— ] (]) 23:22, 18 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::You might note that I've been removing items from this list for over a week and no one has contested a single one of my removals except for that one editor, who took less than four hours to get himself reblocked for another week. There are obviously a lot of people watching my edits and not complaining, since they chime in here and there. You're choosing the wrong place to play the voice of sanity and balance.— ] (]) 23:37, 18 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== I'm done with this for now == |
|
|
|
|
|
I'm done removing stuff. I didn't start talk page sections for what seemed to me like clear-cut cases, but of course am always open to reasoned discussion regarding everything. It's possible I left in too much, it's so hard to tell what's actually happening in Syria. I'd welcome more informed input, naturally.— ] (]) 23:17, 18 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Can we discuss inclusion criteria? == |
|
== Can we discuss inclusion criteria? == |
|
It occurred to me that we may want to limit inclusion on this list not only by requiring that an attack be (a) terrorist and (b) motivated by either perceived Islamic or political goals, but also by requiring that there be an existing Misplaced Pages article on the attack. This is a widely used criterion for inclusion on lists and I think it would be useful here. Many of the items on the list even now suffer from an extreme lack of sourcing. For instance, most of the recent Syrian ones are so routine that there's no continuing coverage of them and no investigation. Each of the 3-6 sides in the Syrian conflict may have an opinion on who did it and why, but no one really knows, and then the day after they drop it because there was another one. If we require the entries on this list to be independently notable to the point where they can support their own Misplaced Pages articles we will avoid a lot of discussion about incidents which lack sufficient sourcing to understand what happened. Thus I'm soliciting everyone's thoughts: Require entries to have a stand-alone article? No? Something else?— ] (]) 15:57, 19 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
It occurred to me that we may want to limit inclusion on this list not only by requiring that an attack be (a) terrorist and (b) motivated by either perceived Islamic or political goals, but also by requiring that there be an existing Misplaced Pages article on the attack. This is a widely used criterion for inclusion on lists and I think it would be useful here. Many of the items on the list even now suffer from an extreme lack of sourcing. For instance, most of the recent Syrian ones are so routine that there's no continuing coverage of them and no investigation. Each of the 3-6 sides in the Syrian conflict may have an opinion on who did it and why, but no one really knows, and then the day after they drop it because there was another one. If we require the entries on this list to be independently notable to the point where they can support their own Misplaced Pages articles we will avoid a lot of discussion about incidents which lack sufficient sourcing to understand what happened. Thus I'm soliciting everyone's thoughts: Require entries to have a stand-alone article? No? Something else?— ] (]) 15:57, 19 April 2014 (UTC) |
== Can we discuss inclusion criteria? ==
It occurred to me that we may want to limit inclusion on this list not only by requiring that an attack be (a) terrorist and (b) motivated by either perceived Islamic or political goals, but also by requiring that there be an existing Misplaced Pages article on the attack. This is a widely used criterion for inclusion on lists and I think it would be useful here. Many of the items on the list even now suffer from an extreme lack of sourcing. For instance, most of the recent Syrian ones are so routine that there's no continuing coverage of them and no investigation. Each of the 3-6 sides in the Syrian conflict may have an opinion on who did it and why, but no one really knows, and then the day after they drop it because there was another one. If we require the entries on this list to be independently notable to the point where they can support their own Misplaced Pages articles we will avoid a lot of discussion about incidents which lack sufficient sourcing to understand what happened. Thus I'm soliciting everyone's thoughts: Require entries to have a stand-alone article? No? Something else?— ] (]) 15:57, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
:I think you are right that we should only include terrorist attacks, which have an article. But I think you should not delete terrorist attacks against ], because the terrorist groups ], ] and ] are islamic terrorists. Also I think you should look at ] and realise that there are many articles about islamic terrorist attacks!--] (]) 12:18, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
::So you disagree with criterion (b) above that the attack should be motivated by perceived Islamic religious or political goals? Or do you think all terrorist attacks against Israel by Islamists are motivated by Islamic religious or political goals even when roughly equivalent acts by, e.g. the PLO or Abu Nidal are not? What criterion would you use to decide which attacks on Israel by Palestinian groups are appropriate, and what effect would that have on the general inclusion criteria?— ] (]) 12:24, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
:::I think that we have to include all attacks by this three groups because they cite islamic reasons for their attacks and the PLO does not! But I think the PLO should still have also a extra List with their attacks against Isreal on their article page.--] (]) 12:31, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
::::Can you give an example of such an attack against Israel where Islamic motives are cited? I'll leave you to work out your PLO list on your own if you don't mind.— ] (]) 12:51, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
:::::Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/Hamas#Hamas_Charter_.281988.29 ] says it is antisemitic because of this statement of ]. Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/Islam_and_antisemitism#Hadith --] (]) 13:01, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
::::::Also you can still help me with the PLO List! I am only an IP.--] (]) 13:05, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
:::::::@]: What you should do to improve this '''mess'''!
::::::::1. Include all islamic terrorist attacks in the List which have an article. Look at ], there are many articles still not in the List.
::::::::2. Include all attacks against Isreal by the 3 groups, which I mentioned
::::::::3. Create a List called '''PLO attacks against Israel''' --] (]) 13:38, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
::::::::--] (]) 13:44, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::I understand that Hamas is an Islamist group, but that doesn't mean that every action they do is based on perceived Islamic religious or political goals. Since they participate in the governance of Gaza, a lot of what they do is more like state action for state purposes. Furthermore, many of their actions have been military in character rather than terrorist, so that it doesn't actually matter what their motives are for purposes of this list. That's why it's necessary to give specific examples rather than trying to argue by theory. It's not plausible that every action an Islamic group takes is for Islamic reasons. It's doubly not plausible that every attack against Israel by an Islamist group belongs on this list. Each must be considered on an individual basis. If you give one example, I'll show you what I mean. Also I don't want to work on a PLO list. This one is enough work already. You'll be able to figure it out eventually, I'm sure.— ] (]) 13:54, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::I am '''shocked'''. You claim that this group has to give an islamic explanation for '''every''' terror attack they commit. Then ], also is no islamist organisation. They also do not explain every terror attack islamically. Then this whole List should be deleted. According to you there exists '''no''' islamic terrorism?--] (]) 14:12, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::::No, don't put words in my mouth. There is Islamic terrorism, but also read ]. We need to have sources saying that attacks are motivated by Islamic religious or political reasons in order to be able to include them on this list. Terrorist groups aren't usually shy about sharing their reasons. We can't just assume that everything they do is motivated by Islamic goals.— ] (]) 14:18, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::::I '''disagree'''. If groups like '''] or ] commit terrorist attacks''', which have their own article. This is enough to include them! This groups do not need an islamic statement for '''every''' terrorist attack.--] (]) 14:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::::::I don't think we need a statement from the group claiming Islamic motives, but I do think we need a statement from some reliable source attributing Islamic motives. One way to get this is by the group's making a statement. Another way is for historians or even journalists making declarative statements that the action had Islamist motives. This is really just basic ]. Not everything Islamists do has Islamic motives, so we need sources to tell us what their motives were in each case.— ] (]) 14:34, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::::::What you do is '''empowerment''' of islamic terrorism by denying the islamic connection! No attack is for you islamically '''enough'''!--] (]) 14:44, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::Well, if you're uninterested in following the basic principles of Misplaced Pages, perhaps you should start your own website and then you can make lists of whatever you want. Everything here has to be verifiable by citations to reliable sources.— ] (]) 14:48, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::'''I added the ] to remind you that you still have to include many articles which fit every critera to be included. Or will you ever add a terrorist attack in this List?'''--] (]) 18:22, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::'''P.S. You also forgot the ]!'''--] (]) 18:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::Well, you violated the ] when you put it back in, so you ought to revert yourself and discuss it below.— ] (]) 18:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
{{od}}
Just because it involves Hamas doesn't mean it's an act of Islamic terrorism. ] does apply. I don't see an article written up about incidences of American Terroist events listing the Boston Tea Party. As the old saying goes, "One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter." Hamas like the PLO in their actions against Israel are to free themselves. Be careful to consider that when noting their Islamism and terrorist acts that are very similar to the American revolutionary war.] (]) 12:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
:What kind of bullshit IS that?! Hamas's SELF-PROCLAIMED goal is not to "free themselves", but to destroy Israel and establish an Islamic state on its territory -- so this DOES make them an Islamic terrorist group! And which of the Founding Fathers had ever called for the destruction of Great Britain, may I ask?! ] (]) 05:35, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
== Chechen separatism ==
This item was recently added:
<blockquote>
<nowiki>
*{{flagicon|Russia}} September 1, 2004 – ] <ref>{{cite news|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/world/04/russian_s/html/1.stm |title=Bbc News |publisher=BBC News |date=September 3, 2004 |accessdate=April 25, 2010}}</ref>
I don't believe it belongs on this list. This was an action by nationalist guerillas who happen to be Muslim. Their goal was to establish the independence of Chechnya. How is that an Islamic goal? The source given calls the terrorists "Chechen separatists," so certainly doesn't support the inclusion here. Thoughts?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:22, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
