Talk:List of terrorist incidents in March 2019

untitled

Hundreds of terrorist attacks and only Christchurch gets a vigil? 105.4.3.114 (talk) 14:09, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

What should be included?

There are numerous rows here that are part of ongoing wars and conflicts. Such events are often not regarded as terrorism. The citations given for them do not refer to them as terrorism. Why are we including them?

Terrorism is a highly contested term. I think we should, at a minimum, requires reliable sources referring to an event as terrorism before we include it. If people want a list of every event in a war zone, they can do that in another article. Bondegezou (talk) 16:14, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Cleverguy122 has reverted, saying, "Huh? Both of these attacks were done by the terrorist group ISIL". It doesn't seem that simple to me. Everything done by ISIL is not necessarily a terrorist act. That's WP:SYNTHy for starters. Cleverguy122, I respect the work you've put in and you could put all that work on an article called List of ISIL attacks, but this article is called "List of terrorist incidents..." Ergo, I suggest we need reliable sources for each event included that call it a terrorist incident. Bondegezou (talk) 21:08, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

The thing is that incidents like these have been put for a long time in these lists, and just because it doesn't mention terrorism doesn't mean it is not terrorism. I think the reason doesn't mention terrorism is because it is obvious, the group often carries out attacks on civilian and military targets in these areas, however, if for example something in Europe and the sources doesn't mention terrorism then it shouldn't be put in the list.Cleverguy122 (talk) 21:38, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Whether something is or is not terrorism is a difficult question. The general solution to such questions is to follow what reliable sources say. If reliable sources don't say something is terrorism, Wikipedia shouldn't say it's terrorism. I suggest that the examples I removed don't have reliable sources that call them terrorism because they are not considered terrorism by the people reporting on them.

Personally, I don't see that armed forces of one faction in a civil war attacking armed forces of another faction in a civil war constitutes terrorism. Let me quote Wikipedia's article on terrorism: "Terrorism is, in the broadest sense, the use of intentionally indiscriminate violence as a means to create terror among masses of people; or fear to achieve a religious or political aim.[1] It is used in this regard primarily to refer to violence during peacetime or in war against non-combatants.[2]" There is an incident listed on 2 March as "A member of the Syrian Democratic Forces was shot dead in Al-Shuhayl. The SDF has blamed Islamic State cells for being behind it." That's in a war and an action against a combatant, not a non-combatant. It thus appears to fail Wikipedia's own definition. But, ultimately, I'm arguing my opinion here doesn't matter and your opinion doesn't matter: it is the opinion of reliable sources that matters. If they call it terrorism, we include it. If they don't, we don't. Bondegezou (talk) 09:43, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Cleverguy122 or any other editors, can we seek to bring this discussion to some resolution? I remain of the view that to list incidents as being terrorism, we need reliable source coverage describing them as terrorism. If those don't exist, they should not be in this set of articles (but I have no objection to their inclusion elsewhere). Bondegezou (talk) 09:36, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I have sought a third opinion. Bondegezou (talk) 15:12, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I note this diff is taking the same position I describe above. Bondegezou (talk) 19:32, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

It should not be up to us to decide what is and isn't terrorism. If an event is defined as such by consensus of reliable sources, we can include it in this list. Contentious items would require stronger sources, so it might make sense to discuss them individually here. – bradv🍁 14:06, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Bradv. Given the third opinion and the recent diff I mention, I take that as sufficient agreement that we do need reliable sources to say something is terrorism to include it here.

I haven't been through everything on the list by any means, but I have removed two items where the reliable sources made no reference to terrorism. I have left edge cases where the source mentions terrorism, but ducks from expressing an opinion itself. Bondegezou (talk) 16:53, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Bondegezou, that sounds like a good effort. I haven't gone through any of them myself, but I would suggest that each item should meet the definition of terrorism (violence against civilians in an effort to incite fear), and be so named in reliable sources. – bradv🍁 17:00, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

There are a number of examples in this list, e.g. the 31 March listing, which were against military targets. However, some definitions of terrorism would still include such, at least in some contexts (e.g. Hyde Park and Regent's Park bombings). I think we should stick to what the RS say.

That said, the 31 March listing raises a complication. The citation given says that the Turkish military called this terrorism, but the citation ducks from calling it terrorism itself.

Personally, I wouldn't call the 31 March event terrorism. Bondegezou (talk) 17:07, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

RfC: terrorist incidents list criteria

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of terrorist incidents#RfC: List criteria. – Levivich 18:00, 10 August 2019 (UTC)