Talk:List of terrorist incidents in January–June 2011/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

changes

tryign otu some new things: 1. add a new column for location and seperate from the details instead of running on, 2. removed the month from each "date" column as the section already signifies th month.(Lihaas (talk) 14:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)).

afghan attack

...was removed citing "Not listed in 2010. It is combat in a war setting. If it wasn't listed in 2010 why should it be listed in 2011. If it targetted civilians and not the actual combat operation itself it shouldn't be ter" 1. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a an exucse to delete, i dont know the issue there but it is part of the IED attack not perpetratred by the state and usually blamed/claimed by the Talib --> constitueing non-state terrorism.(Lihaas (talk) 16:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)).

Why didn't the BBC report call it a terrorist incident? It's in a war zone and was aimed at an Afghan police chief so some people would say it isn't a terrorist incident. How do we answer them? filceolaire (talk) 23:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Full-protected 24 hours

I have full-protected the article for 24 hours due to a currently brewing edit war, which continued amongst established users following an implementation of semi-protection. Users are required to discuss the issues at hand here or seek out some forms of dispute resolution. Regards, –MuZemike 00:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, there has been dispute resolution. The criteria have been discussed repeatedly at the previous year's Talk:List of terrorist incidents, 2010 where it was agreed only specifc incidents called terrorism by reliable sources are included, which was confirmed by the community at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ryan kirkpatrick. I do not believe it is reasonable for me to be expected to have to file a request for comment for every single editor that will not respect policy. If reliable sources have described an incident as terrorism it goes on the list, without reliable sources it does not. It is not for editors to determine if an incident is terrorism. O Fenian (talk) 00:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

O Fenian you are the only one holding the position that this is resolved, at least in any post on the talk page. Thus there is no consensus Trelane (talk) 03:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

No, I am not the only one. Wikipedia policies are very clear, and they apply to this page no matter how much you and another editor claim they do not. O Fenian (talk) 20:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Really, who else? There is NO hard and fast policy NOT up for consensus change because ANYTHING AND EVERYTHIGN on wikipedia = WP:Consensus can change(Lihaas (talk) 22:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)).

You might want to read the part about how consensus between you and another editor cannot decide that policies do not apply to this article, instead of just saying the bit you think suits your argument. You are confusing "according to consensus" with "according to policy", and your disruptiveness regarding this is quite dull now. Still, I will only have a couple more days of this to put up with.. O Fenian (talk) 22:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

page move

to something less POV than such an article title that is already controversial. It would be an accomodation to various sides. I propose List of non-state organisation incidents, 2011 or perhaps add "violent" before incidents.(Lihaas (talk) 22:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)).

While this does seem to solve the existing problem, we're bending over backwards to deal with one editor who has an NPOV problem. It's fine to call a terrorist attack a terrorist attack, however we need a functional agreed upon consensus as to what a terrorist attack is. Certainly every lunatic with a bomb is not a terrorist, however one might consider "is this violent incident perpetrated by a politically oriented group". There will be edge cases, however good faith, discussion, and consensus, not edit warring can resolve those. I'd also note that there is some aspect of "does a rose by any other name smell as sweet?" to which the answer is of course yes. Trelane (talk) 03:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Granted, i was trying to resolve this (the messages below are also reasonmable).

I think seeking the word "terrorist" in a media or government report (although the latter generally does) is not going ot generate anything for even obvious cases.Lihaas (talk) 19:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)).

If we come up with our own little definition of what a "Terrorist incident" is then that would be Original Research. Better to come up with a description of what sort of incident should be included and what sort should be excluded then rename the page to reflect that description. What about List of politically and religiously motivated violent attacks by non-state parties 2011 or maybe just delete this page and add each incident to whichever category is most appropriate for that particular incident.filceolaire (talk) 22:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Though I wouldn't mind expanding the list to include acts by criminals and madmen (2011 Tucson shooting is looking like this) and states (so Israeli bombs dropped on Gaza are included as well as Gazan attacks on Israel)(Also US cruise missiles in Pakistan).filceolaire (talk)

I don't mean US cruise missile attacks are terrorist incidents however they are violent incidents and that is what I think this list should record. The descriptions of each incident in the list should have enough detail that each reader can decide whether it meets his or her personal definition of terrorism. Rename as List of notable violent attacks 2011, OK?filceolaire (talk) 23:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

its not our own definition, its the criteria that relates to already defined meanings.

that would be state terrorism which is apart from non-state terrorism. Although having a list of both is fine. (im trying the state terrorist one in my sandbox at the moment pending definition)(Lihaas (talk) 02:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)).

There is no agreed definition of what is Terrorism, State terrorism or State sponsored terrorism. Specifically there is no agreement on where the line is between these and legimate military action or legitimate insurgency against an unjust government. There is fairly broad agreement on what is a violent attack. filceolaire (talk) 11:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I suggest we create a list for each ongoing conflict List of violent incidents in Iraq 2011, List of violent incidents in Afghanistan 2011, List of violent incidents in Israel/Palestine 2011 and have a seperate generic List of violent incidents 2011 which excludes incidents in those areas but refers to the ongoing conflicts (and the specific lists). This will let us list school shootings or the 2011 Tucson shooting (for instance) without having to do Original Research into the shooters motives. It would also mean incidents like 2010 Kingston unrest could be included even though the violence is criminal rather than political. OK? filceolaire (talk) 10:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree although i would add the caveat "state" and "non-state" to seperate.

Looks like we're making progress.(Lihaas (talk) 22:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)).

I propose we make state or non-state a column in the table rather than putting them on two different lists. In conflicts between state and non-state parties violent acts by one may be related to actions by the other and having them on the same table will add value. filceolaire (talk) 23:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

interesting, but what exactly do you mean? how would these different columns work? Just lsit the incident and then "check off" state or non-state? would you mind trying in your sandbox to show?(Lihaas (talk) 02:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)).

Niger incident

There is no source for the claim that "Suspected Al-Qaeda-North African offshoot militants" were responsible, this is a gross distortion of the source which actually says "No group has said it was behind the abduction, but al-Qaeda's North African offshoot has seized Westerners before". That is a different thing entirely. O Fenian (talk) 19:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Al Jazeera did say so. Your not going to say thats not RS?

the failed rescue was also prompted by seeing the AQIM members in the area.

at any rate, the rescue wasnt a "terrorist incident" the kidnapping was which happened before 2011(Lihaas (talk) 02:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)).

What are you talking about? O Fenian (talk) 09:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

YES, thats the same thing. they were NOT kidnapped that day! they died in a rescue op!(Lihaas (talk) 10:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)).

The BBC source has been updated with more information now anyway. O Fenian (talk) 10:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

2 Frenchmen, 4 supected kidnappers and 3 Niger soldiers died in this incident. 9 deaths total. With the rename of this page this now qualifies for inclusion so I'm adding it back. filceolaire (talk) 19:38, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Ongoing Conflicts

I'm going to rewrite the introduction and the ongoing conflict section. Have a look and see what you think? How would you improve it? filceolaire (talk) 20:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Renaming

Hi, I was just wanting to propose we change the title of this page to something like "Armed conflicts and attacks, 2011" This way all major violent events can be covered without having to dispute POV over every addition, this page will also be more valuable in that it will contain many more events, yet still be equally useful for anyone looking for terrorist attacks in 2011, as they will all certainly be in here regardless of anyones definition of terrorism. Cyber/information warfare could also be included, for those who believe some events of this nature are terrorist like. Please let me know what you think,Passionless (talk) 05:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Yep, proposed this (see aboe). we now have at least 3 supporters. the only think we werent quite in agreement yet was whether to include state AND non-state incidents in the same vein. (although this would validate the iraq/afghan entries)(Lihaas (talk) 20:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)).

Sorry, WP:TLDR Passionless (talk) 21:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Moved. I had a look at various ways of labelling incidents as state / non-state but in most of these the description already tells you that and in the others the perpetrators are unknown - we just suspect it was this or that party. OK? filceolaire (talk) 00:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I removed the terrorist bit that was still left and I created and updated the page List of Israeli attacks on Palestinians, 2011 Passionless (talk) 03:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I stumbled across this and was curious about the new name - does this mean that it only includes armed attacks, and therefore bombings should be exclude? Or does the name mean all armed attacks, such as armed robberies, are therefore to be included? I think the criteria for entry may need to be defined given the article's title. - Bilby (talk) 07:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I think bombings should be included. Major unrest due to criminals, such as that in Kingston last year should be included too. School shootings as well. Personally I feel armed robberies in which people die should be included too. Victims are just as dead and excluding victims or criminal violence somehow feels biassed and not NPOV. If the page ends up with loads more criminal attacks than political well that will of itself give visitors a feel for the relative threat of each of these. filceolaire (talk) 15:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Well I don't know what the exact lines should be, but my general thoughts where for this to be about pretty much all attacks, EXCEPT for those done for personal monetary gain (like common bank robberies) and gang shootings which do not garner international attention and are not apart of a larger problem--Mexican gang attacks would still be included with these rules. All the events so far listed fit under these two rules. Passionless (talk) 23:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I think we need this politically-motivated violent attacks as opposed to just any attack. (the original motive for this)(Lihaas (talk) 18:03, 15 January 2011 (UTC)).

Unfortunately that leads to 2 problems.

First, we have to agree on a definition of "Politically motivated". The Kingston disturbances were by a bunch of drugdealers so that makes them criminal right? But they were to pressure the government to not extradite what-his-name and pressurising the gvernment is political right? If a terrorist group carries out a bank robbery is that political or criminal? What if they spout political rhetoric but spend all the money on fast cars?

Second we have to determine in each case what the motivation is. Personally I have no idea what the motivation of the Tucson shooter is. Any guess would be OR. Sometimes the perpetrator is never found. Does that mean it can't be included?

We should (in my opinion) include all notable attacks and leave it to others to tease out the motivation. filceolaire (talk) 22:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Its not as difficult (for example, bank robberies by political groups would be so because funding their activities are part and parcel of their political aims), but we need to keep out any and all attacks. This shouldnt turn into a list of mere attacks. Should the drug peddler in the bronx get mentioned here? Unfortunately under current criteria it would.

Thats not always the case (except for lone wolf terrorism, which so far Tucson seems so but theres no rush to add it). Of course such extraordinary circumstances like tucson would merit discussion. We dont want everything in discussion, but we can take something to discussion.

Also for example, the tunisia mass rioting is too simplistic too add here.

still though the "ongoing armed conflicts" addition is a good idea, it also need expansion but ive added a see also link instead.

Still the move was a little premature at the moment.(Lihaas (talk) 13:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)).

The question of whether bank robbers should be treated as terrorists has been a highly contentious issue, with politicians denouncing them as gangsters and claiming that to call them terrorists is to glamorise them. I would really rather we did not have to decide that sort of issue here on this page.

The Tucson shooting has already been added a few days ago.

Ongoing armed conflicts have a beginning and an end which is why I felt it appropriate to add them here. Any that end (or start) during the year would have that noted in the appropriate month section, with a section at the beginning listing those in progress at the start of the year. I see you have deleted that section. Can we put it back please?

The unrest in Tunisia has had shootings, riots, teargas. I can see that it might be more appropriate to move it to the on going conflict section but I am surprised you would want to omit such an obvious case of politically motivated violence after what you said above.

I agree that we don't want to include every shot fired but more serious incidents do deserve to be included. The threshold for including terrorist incidents seems to be 1 prominent person injured or 1 to 3 lesser known people dead. What should the threshold be for criminal violence? Should the threshold be different if the dead people are English speakers? On 14 Jan 2011 14 people were killed in a shootout between police and gangsters in Veracruz Mexico. I think that qualifies for inclusion here so I'm going to add it. filceolaire (talk) 19:16, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

thats why the title move was a little premature, there are no time contraitns to move it.

we already have a more comprehensive page, dont know why we need details here. a realted like should suffice.

re: runisia is done on the motive that it is not organised action and more a mass movement to which the ongoing links is jore appropriate.

the threshold used to also be failed attacked incidenteds (where it was notable and politically motivated).

i have always looked to add mexico's shootings though previously didnt hav the reason under the old title(Lihaas (talk) 03:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)).

"Terrorist incident" is not NPOV

Terrorism is not a neutral label. There is no neutral agreed definition of what is and what is not Terrorism. No one uses this label for their own acts - it is only ever used as a negative label for acts by our enemies.

Calling something a "terrorist incident" is not NPOV. For Wikipedia to apply
this label to an incident is Original Research and is not neutral. We can,
however, use this list to record incidents which have been labelled
terrorism by a reliable source.

Do we have a consensus for that as the policy for this page? filceolaire (talk) 16:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Note that the Afghan carbombing report does not mention terrorism nor does the Pakistani assasination. The BBC hardly ever uses that label for incidents. As the BBC reports of these incidents doesn't call them terrorist incidents then it is OR for us to add that label. These should be moved to List of bombings 2011 and List of politically motivated killings 2011 respectively.filceolaire (talk) 16:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Since this update the guard in the Pakistani Assassination has been tried in a terror court. As you state many news agencies do not label terrorist attacks terrorist attacks. Politicians will label whatever they don't like a terrorist attack. Wikipedia is replete with definitions of what terrorism is, and isn't. Achieving consensus that a given incident falls under one or more accepted definitions of terrorism is not original research, and would be neutral. It is certainly better than an assassination not being an act of terror, and wikileaks being an act of terror. That's simply insane. Trelane (talk) 07:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

There are lots of definitions of terrorism but none of them are "accepted". Every definition is disputed by somebody. That is the reason many news agencies don't label any attacks as terrorist attacks and nor should we. Investigating and adjudicating as to whether a particular incident falls within the US State Department definition of terrorism (for instance) when the State Department itself has not given it's opinion on the subject is most definitely Original research. Remember that an argument can be made that the Boston Tea party could qualify as a terrorist incident under some definitions. That is why I am suggesting we list all notable violent incidents and ongoing conflicts and let our readers decide whether they want to call a particular incident terrorism. filceolaire (talk) 11:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

EXACTLY WHY we cant resort to media definitions thereof.(Lihaas (talk) 22:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)).

Yeah, I can definitely see the wisdom in ignoring what reliable sources say and just using your own definition instead.. O Fenian (talk) 22:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

See my proposal in the page move section above which will I think answer this question.filceolaire (talk) 23:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I dont think its worth wasting your time with his disruptive edits taht dont further discussion. We have 3 people here (and more are certainly welcome but we cant wat forever) who are actually and activel working on a resolution.(Lihaas (talk) 02:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)).

Well this definition will definitely help some people to push their POVs on others...if mere labeling is enough, than anyone accused of terrorism is instantly guilt of terrorism. That means that any idiot with power who calls an event a terrorist event, makes it become one. Why would a list of terrorist attacks include "possible cases of terrorism"? Until proven to be one, one should not be factually labelled as one. Passionless (talk) 05:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

in this case exactly why we cant stick to hard-and-fast rules strictly laebeling "terrorism" in the media source to add it here. thats why we need some other criteria. which part do you support/propose/oppose?(Lihaas (talk) 20:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)).

I propose we never label something terrorist, merely label it what it is, an attack/bombimg/assassination/cyber attack. Passionless (talk) 21:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with this. If you kill/terrorise to advance a specific goal, its TERRORISM. So we should probaly put back the "List of Terrorist Incidents" in 2011 list, just rename it "List of incidents categorized as terrorism" or something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.191.49.80 (talk) 22:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Incidents in Iraq and Afghanistan

Some incidents in Afghanistan and Iraq have been added to the page. Should we move these to Timeline of the Iraq war and Timeline of the Afghan war? or start adding other incidents from Iraq and Afghanistan here? filceolaire (talk) 00:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

No. The wars shouldn't even be listed. The conflicts did not start in 2011. Afghanistan and Iraq are noted at List of ongoing military conflicts and List of modern conflicts in the Middle East. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

You could either add them to Timeline of the Iraq War/Timeline of the War in Afghanistan (2001–present)-though they are kinda dead pages- or you could create 2011 in Iraq/ add it to 2011 in Afghanistan. Passionless (talk) 03:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

expand

see to expand User:Lihaas/List of terrorist incidents, 2011 and User:Lihaas/List of state terrorist incidents, 2011(Lihaas (talk) 13:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)).

done the former, pending the latter.(Lihaas (talk) 18:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)).

Thailand

and you have the gall to suggest others are disruptive editors:

"Insurgents carried out a surprise attack on an army unit in Narathiwat's Rangae district Wednesday night, killing four soldiers--including an army company commander--and wounding six others. / The attack occurred just two days after the government extended its emergency decree in the three southernmost provinces of Narathiwat, Pattani and Yala, and only hours after Deputy Prime Minister Suthep Thaugsuban and Army chief Gen Prayuth Chan-ocha returned to Bangkok from a day-long visit in Pattani." + "He said the attackers were believed to come from Pattani's Mayo district and planned to attack in the district of Rangae." + South Thailand insurgency = WP:Common sense (WP:IAR also exists if need be)

granted, your WP:Bold queries are reasonable at times, but then you have to discuss your grievance.(Lihaas (talk) 19:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)).

I have made my points as clear as can possibly be, if you cannot bring your edits to certain articles inline with policy, then I will simply move to have you banned from editing the articles in question. O Fenian (talk) 19:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

put your money where your mouth is!!!!!!!!(Lihaas (talk) 20:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)).

Please tone it down both of you. O Fenian; can you phrase you warnings as if you assume good faith on everyone elses behalf? Please? The sources for the Lone Wolf label may not be quite good enough but is it really that outrageous? filceolaire (talk) 21:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

god knows ive tried olive bracnes.(Lihaas (talk) 21:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)).

new ideas

ive tried some new ideas. the state/non-state thing was discussed and suggested here. the perpetrator and "notes" part is my own, possibly the latter may be reverted as pov, at which point we can discuss changes.

ps- whos gonna give ma "what a great idea" barnstar? ;)(Lihaas (talk) 13:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)).

My worry is that for a lot of incidents we don't know for sure who did it. How do we know if the perpetrator was sponsored or employed by a state? We can guess and probably be right most of the time but I would really rather not have Wikipedia doing that guessing. Why can't we just list the incidents and not call them terrorism? filceolaire (talk) 20:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

im not suggesting we call it terrorism. as per current state the claimed or strongly likely ones are listed with others left blank in the "perpetrator" column, is that okay with you?(Lihaas (talk) 20:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)).

I like having state / non-state as columns which can be left blank until we know. A very elegant solution. Thank you. filceolaire (talk) 21:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

wheres my barnstar? ;)

i tried fiddling (mucking?) with your edit a bit, see if its okay now. if not we can discuss,(Lihaas (talk) 21:17, 20 January 2011 (UTC)).

Looks ok to me.

On the state/nonstate issue. I wonder if these columns could be combined so it could be sortable to group the State/non-state/both/unknown incidents. Sorting doesn't seem to work at the moment. This might save a little real estate too. filceolaire (talk) 22:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

what do you propose writing in that column? currenty a check mark seems more workable and shor then adding more characters to the column(Lihaas (talk) 22:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)).

self-immolation

Wouldnt the burning as related to the ongoing Arab world protests count as a violnent attack, if not attack then just conflict. we could add that here.(Lihaas (talk) 18:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)).

Yes. Self immolation is not so common that this page will be swamped and is a particularily dramatic form of violent political protest that gets significant coverage in reliable sources. I think that is enough to distinguish it from other suicides and I agree we should include these here. filceolaire (talk) 20:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

All or just the big ones Mohamed Bouazizi#List of copycat incidents(Lihaas (talk) 20:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)).

We could group them by day and by country. 5 in Algeria on 15/16; 4 in Egypt on 17/18; 1 in Mauritania. filceolaire (talk) 21:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

not bad, id approve. if you want to do it..(Lihaas (talk) 21:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)).

No citations for any of these so they are not going in here yet. filceolaire (talk) 23:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

the most notable Algerian, tunisian and Mauritanian ones are sourded. (pretty sure at least 1 egyptian one is)(Lihaas (talk) 05:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)).

lone wolf tag

appreciate the tag instead of deletion, thanks.

but to discuss the issue, "lone wolf terrorism" by the very definition is something tht is highly unlikely to warrant a specific cite. So i was wondering what kind of cite is being sought? is it that the perpetrator essentially worked by himself. That is to some degree already cited on the requisite pages. Salman Taseer's page already says so (even though he had rhetorical support), while the Tucson shooting was somewhat still ambiguous (though "obivious" with the political reactions (which could count as the neccesary cite))(Lihaas (talk) 18:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)).

You will find the answers you need at Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. Your opinion that things are "lone wolf terrorism" has no place in Wikipedia articles. O Fenian (talk) 18:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

on Tucson i guess we can agree on that. go ahead and use the <!-- --> hide tags for lone wolrf terrorism there as it seems currently uncertain per this talk page. but for Taseer see his article. numerous statements and RS' suggest he worked alone.(Lihaas (talk) 19:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)).

You might also want to read Wikipedia:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, since we have been here before. I will be removing any remaining unsourced claims in 24 hours time. There are presently two of them. O Fenian (talk) 19:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Im trying to be perfectly civil and discuss the issue but it turns out you need to read that pattern of disruptive edits are more than 1 editor here has clearly seen your changes here as such.

ive also already agreed to your 1 suggestion here while TRYING to discuss the other but you still refuse to DISCUSS citing your whim and demand. 24 hours doesnt constitute an acceptable consensus period particularly on controversial articles.(Lihaas (talk) 19:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)).

I like what has been done with the table - adding columns lets us label incidents as state / non state etc if we have the info but we lets us add the incident and leave this blank initially if the info is not available from reliable sources. filceolaire (talk) 21:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't like the lone wolf terrorist claim either. I find it odd to call him a terrorist for killing a single man, when many others who have done the same like John Wilkes Booth or Lee Harvey Oswald-both killed US presidents, are only called murderers not terrorists. There is also an alright chance that he was not alone, but could have been hired by either an organization or a state to kill him- though I guess until proven otherwise he is alone. I think calling it simply an assassination would be much more neutral and would follow the lead of many other politician murderers. Passionless -Talk 09:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

i presume your talking about the AZ shooter? if so then ive already removed/hidden that. Though for the Pakistani governor's shooting, it is written on his page that the guy had explicit politicial motivations and that he [more than likely] worked alone(Lihaas (talk) 11:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC)).

Oh, no, I was talking about the Pakistani. Of course he had a political motive-every politician who is assassinated was over politics-or the killer was a nutjob, but anyways couldn't we label the perpetrator a lone wolf assassin. All he did was kill one guy, it's not like he hurt uninvolved civilians or blew up a building. Passionless -Talk 11:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Im confused. He is already labeled as such okay, i get it. you mean assassin instead of terrorist. Ive removed terrorist but left as lone wolf. see if you like that, if not then add assassin.Lihaas (talk) 11:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Try adding sources, not your opinion. This is basic Wikipedia policy that has been explained to you time and again. O Fenian (talk) 11:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I added a ref for saying he is a lone wolf. Passionless -Talk 12:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Incidents in Iraq, Afghanistan, Gaza and Somali hijackings

I've moved the afghan incidents to Timeline of the War in Afghanistan (2001-present). If the Gaza, Iraq and Somalia are listed in the Ongoing Conflicts then those incidents should be moved too or maybe we should take them off the list of conflicts. Is the war in Iraq over? Is the somali piracy an ongoing conflict or just a series of incidents? filceolaire (talk) 22:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

There of lots of other conflicts which have been added here which are in cease fire at the moment so we are seeing isolated incidents which should go in the list. Does that make sense to you? Can anyone come up with a better name for this page which makes clearer what should get included and what left out? filceolaire (talk) 21:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I dont see why incidents in ongoing confclits need neseccarily be out. theyre still incidents as such.

I would also think either "List of politically-motivated attacks" or "List armed conflicts and attack incidents" (the latter also then being similar to the old format.). And then we just come up with some criteria base and use it as a hidden note on the top of the page and then leave dscussion room for truly controversial ones.(Lihaas (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2011 (UTC)).

I don't know right now about the criteria, but as for Palestine related incidents, I have full coverage-11events so far this year- at List of Israeli attacks on Palestinians, 2011. Maybe we could re-instate the prominent message that those attacks get their own page. Passionless -Talk 22:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

that would be pov to de-select 1 region alone and include others. If the general "ongoing conflict" list is here, i dont see why this should be restricted to a wikilink(Lihaas (talk) 08:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)).