![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
Should the entire article be restructured into table format with each subheading e.g 2015, 2014 etc having its own sortable table like the one shown below (with refs added in the last column or given separate column). Please give your valuable opinion. FreeatlastChitchat ( talk) 13:12, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Date | Location | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Incident | Death toll | Injured | ||
January 5, 2015 | Kabul, Afghanistan | A car packed with explosives was driven up to the headquarters of EUPOL Afghanistan and detonated. Taliban claimed responsibility. | 1 | 16 |
January 7–9, 2015 | Paris, France | From 11:30 CET on 7 January to 18:35 CET on 9 January 2015, a series of five terrorist attacks occurred across the Île-de-France region with shootings at Charlie Hebdo, Fontenay-aux-Roses and Montrouge; followed by hostage crises at Dammartin-en-Goële and Porte de Vincennes. | 20 (17 civilians and 3 attackers) | 22 |
This "issue" has been here on this page before! Once for all it is NOT original research if there is an incident that fits into the two criterias of an islamist terror attack, but is not word by word written in the source. the criteria can be seen in the title of this list. it has to 1. be a terrorist attack. what a terrorist attack is can be looked up in the wikipedia, several examples are also given here on this page, and 2. it has to be motivated by an extreme islamic views and backround. if these 2 points are given and reported in an incident by a newspage it is qualified for this list. the news does NOT has to explicitely say something like "hello people of the world, this was an islamist and terrorist attack...". the words do not have to be put into the source, and it is NO original research. original reserach would be if one simply takes an incident of , for instance a bomb attack in indonesia and just conclude it was an "islamist" attack. one can see one criteria is given, the bomb attack (which is a form of terror), but the other criteria is not given yet, so one cannot write it on the list--> original research. but if there is a man shouting for ISIS(criteria islamist given) and attacking an individual with a knife(criteria terrorism is given) --> both criterias for this list are given and the incident can be listed, this is NO original research. both needed criterias are fullfilled and given in the source. claiming it as OG is simply a form of violating and disturbing the work in wikipedia. i will add the incidents back on and in case of further violation and falsely accusing of original research contacting an admin. have a nice day. Joobo ( talk) 15:13, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
(Added:) And - as per the section immediately below - there's another example, in this case the one you added back. Not Islamist terrorism, not terrorism, not even real. WP:RECENT and WP:NOTNEWS would seem to be other relevant policies that should be considered on this article, wouldn't you agree? Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:26, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
In his/her latest revert (breaching WP:3RR in the process), Joobo says " they all mention it. in case they dont do your own research. in case of further deletion go ahead and start moderated discussion."
"In case they don't, do your own research"?! Er, no. That's not how wikipedia works. On a non-contentious article, sure, one can add a 'citation needed' template at an appropriate place. Or a 'reference does not state this' template. On a controversial article like this one, though, there are extra, explicit guidelines: namely, do not add material unless a reliable source states that an incident is both terrorist and Islamist.
Joobo, you're still not doing that. Worse, you're claiming your sources state that the incidents meet these two criteria, when many of them clearly don't. In words of no more than three syllables: Don't add incidents unless sources meet both conditions.
Examples:
Incident: Hitoshi Igarashi murder.
Incidentally, all of the references refer to this unsolved murder as a murder, not an assasination.
Incident: Kandahar Airport attack
Incident: al-Qamishli bombing
Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:38, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add the following to the end of the "2015-present" section - it meets both required criteria of being described as Islamist and terrorist in the one source:
* {{flagicon|Iraq}} January 11, 2016 - ISIS gunmen detonate suicide vests in a shopping mall, killing at least 20 and wounding more than 40 people.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.france24.com/en/20160111-iraq-baghdad-mall-attack-islamic-state-group|title=Iraq hit by wave of deadly terror attacks|publisher=France24|date=12 January 2016|accessdate=12 January 2016}}</ref>
Thanks, Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:26, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
There have been several attacks this year which have been confirmed as terrorist attacks in Paris, Istanbul, Burkina Faso and in Tel aviv, Israel. The terrorist who shot people at the bar in Tel aviv was affiliated with Isis according to various official and credible reports. Dont belittle245 ( talk) 10:36, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
I meant the vehicular attack in France , not paris I appologize. Dont belittle245 ( talk) 10:41, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
List of Islamist terrorist attacks has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add a link to List of (non-state) terrorist incidents in the See also section. Wykx 11:46, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
NO SOURCE has to content the excact words of islamist terrorist attacks. it is NOT needed. what is needed, is that every incident listed here needs to have a source that states WHO acted out WHAT.... so if the lets say taliban act out a bomb blast BOTH criterias of this list are given. since for all out there mostly bastun who still doesnt know about taliban apparently the taliban are an islamist terror group and just in case you dont know about it either a bomb blast is a terrorist attack. simple as that, both criterias are given, no need to discuss or argue any further. im getting damn tired of this wannabecorrect shit of the ips and you bastun who whyever you do it act likethe most stupid monkeys on earth simply taking the og argument eventhough it is no OG at all. only your obsession with words arent fullfilled. but its not about excact words. it is about the incident itself, how the press describes it isnt of any importance. important is THAT they describe it in a way that it gets obvious WHO did WHAT. if i notice any more disruptive editing on this page regarding alleged OG, an admin or higher level wikipedia individual will be taken into this whole thing. it is really ludicrous. have a nice one. Joobo ( talk) 14:18, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
"Reference: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/12/taliban-kills-scores-ongoing-kandahar-airport-attack-151209153246413.html does not refer to terrorims or Islamism;" are you actually serious? the source explicitly and unambiguously points out to the taliban, which is an islamist terrorist organization, who carried out an attack on the kandahar airport. what else do you want a source to tell you? your "argument" makes no sense at all. i can fully understand that reliable sources are needed, and just you know it, there are way way more other incidents i wanted to consider to put onto the list, but you know what? i didnt do it cause they werent quite clear and sourced. but then the few getting put on here with a normal very good and reliable source you come up and tell something as "original research", with no logical gronds at all. tell me bastun, tell us, what else do you want aljazeera, bbc and co. or any other meda; press; news source to tell you if the stating that an islamist terrorist organization conducted a violent terrorist attack on the countries airport isnt enough and credible for you; no its even og? its absolutely disproportionate. Joobo ( talk) 11:57, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
As some users have taken to blanket deleting content, can I remind them that the proper procedure is to tag the content and discuss it. I agree that we should not automatically include any attack here, but that's why we have discussion boards. If an unsourced attack is added, just remove it. If an attack not attributed to an islamist is added, just remove it. But if an attack is carried out by islamists and the information is well-sourced, then tag it and discuss it here to gain consensus about it. Jeppiz ( talk) 09:51, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
I recommend reading WP:No original research. Unless reliable sources describe an incident as a terrorist attack and attribute it to Islamists, including it here is original research. This has been discussed many times before. — MShabazz Talk/ Stalk 12:33, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Agree with User:Malik Shabazz. There is a reason we require sources citing both Islamism and terrorism. If we don't insist on such WP:RS citations for inclusion, then we end up with those previously added by some users taking part in this debate, where unsolved murders are described as terrorist assassinations. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:34, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm still not sure what the argument is about. I agree with
User:Malik Shabazz that if we don't know who committed a terrorist attack, of course we cannot put it here. But once again,
WP:BLUE is very much a relevant policy:
"Sometimes editors will insist on citations for material simply because they dislike it or prefer some other material, not because the material in any way needs verification. For example, an editor may demand a citation for the fact that most people have five digits on each hand (yes, this really happened).[1] Another may decide that the color of the sky is actually aqua rather than blue, pull out an assortment of verifiable spectrographic analyses and color charts to demonstrate that this position is actually correct, and follow that with a demand that other editors provide equivalent reliable sources for the original statement that the sky is in fact blue. While there are cases where this kind of pedantic insistence is useful and necessary, often it is simply disruptive, and can be countered simply by pointing out that there is no need to verify statements that are patently obvious. If the alternate proposition merits inclusion in the article under other policies and guidelines it should of course be included, but it should in no way be given greater prominence because it is sourced."
If it's clear and sourced that an attack was carried out by an Islamist group such as Boko Haram, ISIS, Al-Qaida etc., then I don't see what plausible argument there can be against including it here.
Jeppiz (
talk)
19:01, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
@ MShabazz and Jeppiz Just let me get something straight here. So Jeppiz what you are saying is that that guys who wrote this
Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[1] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented.
Were just not right. you can see that they EXPLICITLY wrote the word "FACTS" in there, can't you? Its right there bolded up for you in the very first sentence. This means that unless a RELIABLE source says that an event is a terrorist attack we will NOT be including it. Simple as that, we will NOT be including it. Even if an Islamist mofo runs up to me on the street and tells me personally that he has killed the archdevil Obama, I will NOT be including that in wikipedia. So my question is two fold, firstly why in the name of uncle sam's short and curlies are you citing an essay to violate a policy? and secondly why are you continuing to cite an essay to violate a policy? FreeatlastChitchat ( talk) 05:54, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Malik is a good serious user who is here for all the right reasons. He and I simply disagree on how to implement an important policy and that's all there's to it. I won't be party to any questioning of his motives. Jeppiz ( talk) 00:26, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
List of Islamist terrorist attacks. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:27, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
This is for mshabaz: I have difficulty using Wikipedia so I'll leave a copy here.
This is a quote from the article proving that the shooter in Tel Aviv was influenced by IS:
Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dont belittle245 ( talk • contribs) 19:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
I did not miss the next sentence but I thank you for your concern, a group does not have to claim responsibility in order for such an attack to be terror, but if you were ideologically influenced that is more then enough, for instance look at the case of the Boston Brothers from 2013, they were lone wolves unaffiliated directly with any terror organisation but they were still considered to perpetrate a terror attack by all authorities and media.. There is also lately many new developments in Israel where they are finding out just how influenced by terror and Islamic extremism the shooter was!! Care to examine anything I wrote??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dont belittle245 ( talk • contribs) 06:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Should ALL attacks by any organization labelled as a terrorist Organization and present in List of designated terrorist groups be called as "Terrorist" attacks as per the essay at WP:BLUE or should we bind editors to cite reliable sources for each attack. The arguments against this are that as per WP:BLUE essay we do not need to cite the obvious as they have been labelled as terrorist every attack made by them should be called terrorism. While the arguments against are that WP:Verifiability and WP:No original research are both policies and compliance with them is not optional and that these organizations attack a plethora of targets from other terrorists to common civilians, so we should wait until an RS calls something a terrorist attack before including it. The two options being given through this RFC are
Please vote with Option one(1) or Option(2) FreeatlastChitchat ( talk) 06:58, 18 January 2016 (UTC) (edited as per LP)
As there are only two options, I had to pick one. My personal preference would be this: We should have a source saying it's terrorism, but don't need a source saying Islamic if it's by a know Islamic group. I agree that not all attacks are terrorism, so requiring a source to mention terrorism is a perfectly valid argument. Requiring a source to explicitly say the Taliban, IS or Al-Qaida are Islamist is rather pointless. The Pope is Catholic even if a source doesn't say so, Obama is US President even if a source doesn't say so, Netanyahu is Israeli PM even if a source doesn't say so, and the Taliban, IS, Boko Haram and Al-Qaida are Islamist even if a source doesn't say so. Jeppiz ( talk) 11:31, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
I realize there have been an enormous debate about what to label as "islamic terrorism", I would just like to point out to the fact that there is an abnormally large amount of attacks listed in Israel that have been considered as religiously motivated rather than politically. Has anyone checked to see if the claim is supported by reliable sources? Makeandtoss ( talk) 14:37, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
List of Islamist terrorist attacks has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
To be added near the bottom of the 2016 list of terrorist attacks in chronological order...
Ghostvet (
talk)
22:02, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
I have removed the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting from this list. It does not meet the stated inclusion criteria for the list. The fact that ISIL has, via their media agency, made such a claim does not make it true. The FBI has not made such a determination. Including this entry in this article violates a number of Wikipedia policies including WP:OR and WP:NPOV.- Mr X 20:31, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
"Plenty of RS have determined it was an Islamic terrorist attack."Please provide links to some sources that actually say that. - Mr X 23:09, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
In fact, intelligence officials and investigators say they're "becoming increasingly convinced that the motive for this attack had very little — or maybe nothing — to do with ISIS."[4]. Also check out [5]. There's questions being raised by investigators about whether or not this was truly Islamist terrorism or just someone using it as an excuse/cover. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 20:45, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
"many questions remain unanswered. Investigators do not know ... Mateen’s reasons for attacking the popular LGBT nightspot." From an article written today on the Washington Post website. Not week-old speculation, but the current status of the investigation. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 16:53, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
So suppose he had a gay affair ( http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3653734/Puerto-Rican-man-claiming-Orlando-shooter-s-gay-lover-describes-friends-benefits-relationship-says-attack-revenge-Omar-Mateen-discovered-one-men-d-threesome-HIV-positive.html) became concerned about having AIDS and then in a fit of revenge and reactionary religious fervor (saw his condition as the fulfillment of religious law) he attacked the nightclub. Does this rule in or rule out? (Speculating now so prob done for while) Mrdthree ( talk) 07:20, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
I have opened an RfC to cut the useless bickering. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 00:44, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
EDIT: Didn't see survey. PS: I guess we should have survey about whether 9/11 or 7/7 was an Islamist attack. In fact, let's debate obvious facts until the cows come home.
R00b07 (
talk)
23:46, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Why exactly have the flags that were here until the 1st of May 2016 been removed and replaced with country names alone? 119.224.86.235 ( talk) 01:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
List of Islamist terrorist attacks has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Where is the list of Orlando and other attacks against US ?
92.26.52.164 ( talk) 09:26, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
Should the entire article be restructured into table format with each subheading e.g 2015, 2014 etc having its own sortable table like the one shown below (with refs added in the last column or given separate column). Please give your valuable opinion. FreeatlastChitchat ( talk) 13:12, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Date | Location | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Incident | Death toll | Injured | ||
January 5, 2015 | Kabul, Afghanistan | A car packed with explosives was driven up to the headquarters of EUPOL Afghanistan and detonated. Taliban claimed responsibility. | 1 | 16 |
January 7–9, 2015 | Paris, France | From 11:30 CET on 7 January to 18:35 CET on 9 January 2015, a series of five terrorist attacks occurred across the Île-de-France region with shootings at Charlie Hebdo, Fontenay-aux-Roses and Montrouge; followed by hostage crises at Dammartin-en-Goële and Porte de Vincennes. | 20 (17 civilians and 3 attackers) | 22 |
This "issue" has been here on this page before! Once for all it is NOT original research if there is an incident that fits into the two criterias of an islamist terror attack, but is not word by word written in the source. the criteria can be seen in the title of this list. it has to 1. be a terrorist attack. what a terrorist attack is can be looked up in the wikipedia, several examples are also given here on this page, and 2. it has to be motivated by an extreme islamic views and backround. if these 2 points are given and reported in an incident by a newspage it is qualified for this list. the news does NOT has to explicitely say something like "hello people of the world, this was an islamist and terrorist attack...". the words do not have to be put into the source, and it is NO original research. original reserach would be if one simply takes an incident of , for instance a bomb attack in indonesia and just conclude it was an "islamist" attack. one can see one criteria is given, the bomb attack (which is a form of terror), but the other criteria is not given yet, so one cannot write it on the list--> original research. but if there is a man shouting for ISIS(criteria islamist given) and attacking an individual with a knife(criteria terrorism is given) --> both criterias for this list are given and the incident can be listed, this is NO original research. both needed criterias are fullfilled and given in the source. claiming it as OG is simply a form of violating and disturbing the work in wikipedia. i will add the incidents back on and in case of further violation and falsely accusing of original research contacting an admin. have a nice day. Joobo ( talk) 15:13, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
(Added:) And - as per the section immediately below - there's another example, in this case the one you added back. Not Islamist terrorism, not terrorism, not even real. WP:RECENT and WP:NOTNEWS would seem to be other relevant policies that should be considered on this article, wouldn't you agree? Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:26, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
In his/her latest revert (breaching WP:3RR in the process), Joobo says " they all mention it. in case they dont do your own research. in case of further deletion go ahead and start moderated discussion."
"In case they don't, do your own research"?! Er, no. That's not how wikipedia works. On a non-contentious article, sure, one can add a 'citation needed' template at an appropriate place. Or a 'reference does not state this' template. On a controversial article like this one, though, there are extra, explicit guidelines: namely, do not add material unless a reliable source states that an incident is both terrorist and Islamist.
Joobo, you're still not doing that. Worse, you're claiming your sources state that the incidents meet these two criteria, when many of them clearly don't. In words of no more than three syllables: Don't add incidents unless sources meet both conditions.
Examples:
Incident: Hitoshi Igarashi murder.
Incidentally, all of the references refer to this unsolved murder as a murder, not an assasination.
Incident: Kandahar Airport attack
Incident: al-Qamishli bombing
Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:38, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add the following to the end of the "2015-present" section - it meets both required criteria of being described as Islamist and terrorist in the one source:
* {{flagicon|Iraq}} January 11, 2016 - ISIS gunmen detonate suicide vests in a shopping mall, killing at least 20 and wounding more than 40 people.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.france24.com/en/20160111-iraq-baghdad-mall-attack-islamic-state-group|title=Iraq hit by wave of deadly terror attacks|publisher=France24|date=12 January 2016|accessdate=12 January 2016}}</ref>
Thanks, Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:26, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
There have been several attacks this year which have been confirmed as terrorist attacks in Paris, Istanbul, Burkina Faso and in Tel aviv, Israel. The terrorist who shot people at the bar in Tel aviv was affiliated with Isis according to various official and credible reports. Dont belittle245 ( talk) 10:36, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
I meant the vehicular attack in France , not paris I appologize. Dont belittle245 ( talk) 10:41, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
List of Islamist terrorist attacks has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add a link to List of (non-state) terrorist incidents in the See also section. Wykx 11:46, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
NO SOURCE has to content the excact words of islamist terrorist attacks. it is NOT needed. what is needed, is that every incident listed here needs to have a source that states WHO acted out WHAT.... so if the lets say taliban act out a bomb blast BOTH criterias of this list are given. since for all out there mostly bastun who still doesnt know about taliban apparently the taliban are an islamist terror group and just in case you dont know about it either a bomb blast is a terrorist attack. simple as that, both criterias are given, no need to discuss or argue any further. im getting damn tired of this wannabecorrect shit of the ips and you bastun who whyever you do it act likethe most stupid monkeys on earth simply taking the og argument eventhough it is no OG at all. only your obsession with words arent fullfilled. but its not about excact words. it is about the incident itself, how the press describes it isnt of any importance. important is THAT they describe it in a way that it gets obvious WHO did WHAT. if i notice any more disruptive editing on this page regarding alleged OG, an admin or higher level wikipedia individual will be taken into this whole thing. it is really ludicrous. have a nice one. Joobo ( talk) 14:18, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
"Reference: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/12/taliban-kills-scores-ongoing-kandahar-airport-attack-151209153246413.html does not refer to terrorims or Islamism;" are you actually serious? the source explicitly and unambiguously points out to the taliban, which is an islamist terrorist organization, who carried out an attack on the kandahar airport. what else do you want a source to tell you? your "argument" makes no sense at all. i can fully understand that reliable sources are needed, and just you know it, there are way way more other incidents i wanted to consider to put onto the list, but you know what? i didnt do it cause they werent quite clear and sourced. but then the few getting put on here with a normal very good and reliable source you come up and tell something as "original research", with no logical gronds at all. tell me bastun, tell us, what else do you want aljazeera, bbc and co. or any other meda; press; news source to tell you if the stating that an islamist terrorist organization conducted a violent terrorist attack on the countries airport isnt enough and credible for you; no its even og? its absolutely disproportionate. Joobo ( talk) 11:57, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
As some users have taken to blanket deleting content, can I remind them that the proper procedure is to tag the content and discuss it. I agree that we should not automatically include any attack here, but that's why we have discussion boards. If an unsourced attack is added, just remove it. If an attack not attributed to an islamist is added, just remove it. But if an attack is carried out by islamists and the information is well-sourced, then tag it and discuss it here to gain consensus about it. Jeppiz ( talk) 09:51, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
I recommend reading WP:No original research. Unless reliable sources describe an incident as a terrorist attack and attribute it to Islamists, including it here is original research. This has been discussed many times before. — MShabazz Talk/ Stalk 12:33, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Agree with User:Malik Shabazz. There is a reason we require sources citing both Islamism and terrorism. If we don't insist on such WP:RS citations for inclusion, then we end up with those previously added by some users taking part in this debate, where unsolved murders are described as terrorist assassinations. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:34, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm still not sure what the argument is about. I agree with
User:Malik Shabazz that if we don't know who committed a terrorist attack, of course we cannot put it here. But once again,
WP:BLUE is very much a relevant policy:
"Sometimes editors will insist on citations for material simply because they dislike it or prefer some other material, not because the material in any way needs verification. For example, an editor may demand a citation for the fact that most people have five digits on each hand (yes, this really happened).[1] Another may decide that the color of the sky is actually aqua rather than blue, pull out an assortment of verifiable spectrographic analyses and color charts to demonstrate that this position is actually correct, and follow that with a demand that other editors provide equivalent reliable sources for the original statement that the sky is in fact blue. While there are cases where this kind of pedantic insistence is useful and necessary, often it is simply disruptive, and can be countered simply by pointing out that there is no need to verify statements that are patently obvious. If the alternate proposition merits inclusion in the article under other policies and guidelines it should of course be included, but it should in no way be given greater prominence because it is sourced."
If it's clear and sourced that an attack was carried out by an Islamist group such as Boko Haram, ISIS, Al-Qaida etc., then I don't see what plausible argument there can be against including it here.
Jeppiz (
talk)
19:01, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
@ MShabazz and Jeppiz Just let me get something straight here. So Jeppiz what you are saying is that that guys who wrote this
Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[1] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented.
Were just not right. you can see that they EXPLICITLY wrote the word "FACTS" in there, can't you? Its right there bolded up for you in the very first sentence. This means that unless a RELIABLE source says that an event is a terrorist attack we will NOT be including it. Simple as that, we will NOT be including it. Even if an Islamist mofo runs up to me on the street and tells me personally that he has killed the archdevil Obama, I will NOT be including that in wikipedia. So my question is two fold, firstly why in the name of uncle sam's short and curlies are you citing an essay to violate a policy? and secondly why are you continuing to cite an essay to violate a policy? FreeatlastChitchat ( talk) 05:54, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Malik is a good serious user who is here for all the right reasons. He and I simply disagree on how to implement an important policy and that's all there's to it. I won't be party to any questioning of his motives. Jeppiz ( talk) 00:26, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
List of Islamist terrorist attacks. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:27, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
This is for mshabaz: I have difficulty using Wikipedia so I'll leave a copy here.
This is a quote from the article proving that the shooter in Tel Aviv was influenced by IS:
Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dont belittle245 ( talk • contribs) 19:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
I did not miss the next sentence but I thank you for your concern, a group does not have to claim responsibility in order for such an attack to be terror, but if you were ideologically influenced that is more then enough, for instance look at the case of the Boston Brothers from 2013, they were lone wolves unaffiliated directly with any terror organisation but they were still considered to perpetrate a terror attack by all authorities and media.. There is also lately many new developments in Israel where they are finding out just how influenced by terror and Islamic extremism the shooter was!! Care to examine anything I wrote??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dont belittle245 ( talk • contribs) 06:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Should ALL attacks by any organization labelled as a terrorist Organization and present in List of designated terrorist groups be called as "Terrorist" attacks as per the essay at WP:BLUE or should we bind editors to cite reliable sources for each attack. The arguments against this are that as per WP:BLUE essay we do not need to cite the obvious as they have been labelled as terrorist every attack made by them should be called terrorism. While the arguments against are that WP:Verifiability and WP:No original research are both policies and compliance with them is not optional and that these organizations attack a plethora of targets from other terrorists to common civilians, so we should wait until an RS calls something a terrorist attack before including it. The two options being given through this RFC are
Please vote with Option one(1) or Option(2) FreeatlastChitchat ( talk) 06:58, 18 January 2016 (UTC) (edited as per LP)
As there are only two options, I had to pick one. My personal preference would be this: We should have a source saying it's terrorism, but don't need a source saying Islamic if it's by a know Islamic group. I agree that not all attacks are terrorism, so requiring a source to mention terrorism is a perfectly valid argument. Requiring a source to explicitly say the Taliban, IS or Al-Qaida are Islamist is rather pointless. The Pope is Catholic even if a source doesn't say so, Obama is US President even if a source doesn't say so, Netanyahu is Israeli PM even if a source doesn't say so, and the Taliban, IS, Boko Haram and Al-Qaida are Islamist even if a source doesn't say so. Jeppiz ( talk) 11:31, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
I realize there have been an enormous debate about what to label as "islamic terrorism", I would just like to point out to the fact that there is an abnormally large amount of attacks listed in Israel that have been considered as religiously motivated rather than politically. Has anyone checked to see if the claim is supported by reliable sources? Makeandtoss ( talk) 14:37, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
List of Islamist terrorist attacks has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
To be added near the bottom of the 2016 list of terrorist attacks in chronological order...
Ghostvet (
talk)
22:02, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
I have removed the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting from this list. It does not meet the stated inclusion criteria for the list. The fact that ISIL has, via their media agency, made such a claim does not make it true. The FBI has not made such a determination. Including this entry in this article violates a number of Wikipedia policies including WP:OR and WP:NPOV.- Mr X 20:31, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
"Plenty of RS have determined it was an Islamic terrorist attack."Please provide links to some sources that actually say that. - Mr X 23:09, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
In fact, intelligence officials and investigators say they're "becoming increasingly convinced that the motive for this attack had very little — or maybe nothing — to do with ISIS."[4]. Also check out [5]. There's questions being raised by investigators about whether or not this was truly Islamist terrorism or just someone using it as an excuse/cover. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 20:45, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
"many questions remain unanswered. Investigators do not know ... Mateen’s reasons for attacking the popular LGBT nightspot." From an article written today on the Washington Post website. Not week-old speculation, but the current status of the investigation. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 16:53, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
So suppose he had a gay affair ( http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3653734/Puerto-Rican-man-claiming-Orlando-shooter-s-gay-lover-describes-friends-benefits-relationship-says-attack-revenge-Omar-Mateen-discovered-one-men-d-threesome-HIV-positive.html) became concerned about having AIDS and then in a fit of revenge and reactionary religious fervor (saw his condition as the fulfillment of religious law) he attacked the nightclub. Does this rule in or rule out? (Speculating now so prob done for while) Mrdthree ( talk) 07:20, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
I have opened an RfC to cut the useless bickering. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 00:44, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
EDIT: Didn't see survey. PS: I guess we should have survey about whether 9/11 or 7/7 was an Islamist attack. In fact, let's debate obvious facts until the cows come home.
R00b07 (
talk)
23:46, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Why exactly have the flags that were here until the 1st of May 2016 been removed and replaced with country names alone? 119.224.86.235 ( talk) 01:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
List of Islamist terrorist attacks has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Where is the list of Orlando and other attacks against US ?
92.26.52.164 ( talk) 09:26, 1 July 2016 (UTC)