Talk:List of terrorist incidents in June 2020

Wikipedia policy compliance?

Is this article exempt from the normal Wikipedia policies such as WP:VER, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:BLPCRIME, WP:BRD, etc.? The reason I ask is because of this edit. That entry cannot be verified, does not use neutral wording and is a personal and inaccurate interpretation of events. Firstly as the investigation is still ongoing it has not yet even been confirmed as a terrorist incident. Secondly, the perpetrator has not yet been confirmed, nor have the police confirmed the identity of the suspect currently held in relation to the incident. Thirdly, the motive has not yet been confirmed, so we cannot assert that it is 'part of' "Islamic terrorism in Europe". I tried to remove it, but Lukasvdb99 keeps restoring it. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:19, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@Panterajbgroc: you ask why. Didn't you read my edit summary? Read the post above. I you disagree with any of it, please give your rationale. But remember WP:3RR and note that reverts for BLP violations are allowed under 3RR. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:01, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

2020 Reading stabbings should be included, because it has been described by RS as a terrorist attack. Rewording it & omitting the motive, suspect's name etc. makes sense. Jim Michael (talk) 16:25, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

@Jim Michael: it might have been described by police as a terrorist incident, but it has not been confirmed as actually having been one. Currently, although charges for murder and attempted murder have been made, no charges under the terrorism act have been made. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:51, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

The second sentence of this article says that alleged & suspected terrorist incidents are included. The police's statement & mainstream media coverage are easily enough for it to be seriously suspected of being a terrorist attack. Jim Michael (talk) 17:25, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

@Jim Michael: which does not accurately summarise the 'guidelines', the first of which states quite clearly "To be included, entries must be notable (have a stand-alone article) and described by a consensus of reliable sources as "terrorism". There is no such consensus because it has not been tested and confirmed yet. Perhaps the lead needs correcting. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:51, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

The lead

I've updated the lead to more accurately summarise the acceptable content for the list. The guidelines for these lists were updated following this RfC in October 2019, but the lead was never changed at that time to match the new guidelines. That failure has resulted in confusion and misunderstanding, amongsy those who have not read past the lead, as the what belongs in the list, and what does not. I hope it is clearer now. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:55, 28 June 2020 (UTC)