Talk:List of terrorist incidents in 2021

2021 United States Capitol attack

I reverted an edit by someone who removed these events saying it was not terrorism. The definition, in the article, reads, "...attacks by violent non-state actors for political motives." This appears to match exactly what happened. I am not bonded to either side but starting the conversation for consensus. Ifnord (talk) 03:50, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I think it definitely checks the boxes of domestic terrorism, Chuck schumer, Journalists and some terrorism experts also called it as such Norschweden (talk) 04:19, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I've opened an RfC at Talk:2021 storming of the United States Capitol#RFC: Should this event be characterized as terrorism? on this characterization. Jdphenix (talk) 03:47, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

There is an open RfC regarding the characterization of the events of January 6, 2021 at the U.S. Capitol at Talk:2021 storming of the United States Capitol#RFC: Should this event be characterized as terrorism?. Please respect that discussion. Jdphenix (talk) 19:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

@WalterII:, there is no consensus regarding the characterization of 2021 storming of the United States Capitol as terrorism. See the RfC linked above. Can you please self-revert your edit adding it back to this article? Jdphenix (talk) 19:01, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Even though the article definition says that, per Synthesis of published material: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." We need sources that show there is consensus that it was a terrorist attack.

A lot of demonstrators behave violently but it does not necessarily raise it to the level of terrorism. Police are assaulted, windows smashed, dumpsters set aflame, stones thrown, etc., in many political demonstrations.

There are terrorism watch sites that we could consult.

TFD (talk) 22:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

If "no censensus" with the majority being pro calling it terrorism, results in actively ignoring facts and sources, that system is broken Norschweden (talk) 00:37, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:Requests for comments are not majority votes, see WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. Is this described as "terrorism" by a consensus of WP:Reliable sources, as mandated by the inclusion criteria on this list? TompaDompa (talk) 01:21, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

No reliable sources call it terrorism. You might want to consider the difference between what 700 demonstrators did to the Capitol on Jan. 6 2021 and what four actual terrorists intended to do on Sept. 11 2001. Now imagine if instead of 19 terrorist on 9/11, bin Laden had had 700. TFD (talk) 02:52, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Is this an issue to be addressed here, or at the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol article first? It would seem unusual for this article to class the storming as terrorism while the storming article does not, so I believe it is a matter to be addressed at the storming article first. FDW777 (talk) 08:40, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Bombing in China today

See 2021 Guangzhou bombing for the article. 5 dead with 5 more injured. Elijahandskip (talk) 16:53, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

If and when reliable sources call this terrorism it can be added to this list and it can be called terrorism in the article about the bombing. Not before. Sjö (talk) 18:28, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Notable criteria stand-alone article

I want to challenge the criteria that an incident must have a stand-alone article to be considered notable

Look at the case with the suicide attack in Somalia that was recently removed. It was definitely notable, atleast in term of casualties with over 20 people killed. The incident did not however lead to someone creating a stand-alone article, likely because these types of attacks are somewhat of a regular occurence in Somalia that does not lead to much attention in the western media. Had the same attack taken place in an european country it would most certainly have resultet in a lot of media attention and a stand-alone article on wikipedia. I think that if the attack led to mass-casualties and the source is legit that should be enough to classify it as notable, otherwise this will just be a list of terrorist incidents that recived a lot of attention in western media. Not very inclusive or encompassing. --Brodinium (talk) 17:45, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

The inclusion criteria were endorsed by a request for comment at Talk:List of terrorist incidents/Archive 2#RfC: List criteria. You would need to start a new request for comment to overturn that consensus. FDW777 (talk) 17:49, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

There is a standalone article for the 2021 Mogadishu suicide car bombing. Jim Michael (talk) 18:42, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Apparently that wasn't enough as the source did not explicitly describe the suicide bombing as a terrorist attack. --Brodinium (talk) 19:31, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

True, but if a reliable source says it was, it can be added. It was a suicide car bombing of a restaurant by al-Shabaab. Similarly, the 2021 Maiduguri rocket attacks & the Indonesian National Police headquarters shooting are eligible for inclusion with reliable refs backing their description as terrorism. Jim Michael (talk) 16:58, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

This is missing hundreds of incidents

This article is missing many incidents from countries all over the world- but many from South Asia and west Asia

Add only those which meet the inclusion criteria. Jim Michael (talk) 09:21, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

July 2021 Baghdad bombing

Removed. Again. I've explained to the editor concerned it doesn't meet the inclusion criteria. They've just ignored it completely. Probably another Android user that never sees messgaes, but there's nothing I can do about that. FDW777 (talk) 13:02, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello! What do you mean "inclusion criteria", if you think that i editated wikipedia with fake news, you are very wrong. The eveniment was enough big to be memorable! User4721 (talk) 13:32, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

The inclusion critera that are mentioned in the article, on this talk page, and also explained on your own talk page. FDW777 (talk) 14:08, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Murder of David Amess

As the court proceedings have not been completed, we do not yet know whether this incident was a terrorist one. Sure the police decided to investigate it as one, but all that means is they get stronger powers to investigate it, they cannot predetermine the outcome of the court proceedings though. And sure, there have been some sensationalist headlines from some media outlets calling it, but they do not make the decision either, and we should know, as supported by WP:HEADLINES, that these headlines are not considered to be reliable sources by Wikipedia. For those reasons, I propose removing it, per WP:BLP (there is only one suspect, so even without being mentioned in this article, he is implicitly implicated), from this article pending proof that it a terrorist incident actually occurred, and that depends, at least, on the court proceedings concluding. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:48, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Those media outlets include many which are RS. Jim Michael (talk) 11:28, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:HEADLINES applies equally to otherwise reliable sources, it clearly states: "News headlines—including subheadlines—are not a reliable source". -- DeFacto (talk). 11:36, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

The prose of many mainstream media RS refs clearly state that the police described it as a terrorist incident. Jim Michael (talk) 12:18, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Please provide links to them and explain why you think it matters how the police describe them rather than wait for any court proceedings to conclude. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:12, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Why do you insist on using a very vague title for this section, when using the article's title makes much more sense? I'm not aware of anyone else calling it the Leigh-on-Sea incident. Most readers wouldn't know what that refers to & haven't heard of Leigh-on-Sea. You seem to be trying to make a point by doing so. Are you saying it wasn't a killing? Are you saying the article's title should be changed?

Paragraph 2 of the Investigation section includes a Financial Times ref which states London's Metropolitan Police declared the killing a terror incident. There's no rule that we wait for court proceedings to conclude before we categorise an incident as terrorist. We have RS to back the statement, which is all we need. We shouldn't wait months because it would be an unnecessary delay that would make this article even more incomplete than it already is. Jim Michael (talk) 14:16, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, we follow what the reliable sources say. There is no ban in WP:BLP on including information about people that are not convicted, it only says editors should "seriously consider not including" material that suggests that a person is guilty. I think, considering that this is a high-profile, that there is a strong consensus in RS and that the person is charged with preparation of terrorist acts that the incident should be included. Sjö (talk) 14:27, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

See my post below. And WP:BLP clearly says, "Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction", and we need a conviction to justify adding that incident here. Why do you think we would want to imply a conviction when there isn't one? -- DeFacto (talk). 15:03, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Point 1, I explained in my edit summaries. Here we are discussing whether a row belongs in a table in this article, and to me, the 'location' column was the most conspicuous. Readers only need to be able to read to find that. What the incident involved isn't relevant here, just whether it has been proven to be a terrorist incident, or not.

Point 2, we are talking about this article, not that one, so the references should be in this one. But anyway, imagining we brought that reference here, it still wouldn't support the incident being added to the table here. This table is for just "terrorist incidents" and the police deciding to investigate an incident as a terror incident does not mean it will be proven to be a terrorist incident. The only time we will know that is when the court proceedings conclude. The "rule" is WP:BLP which says very clearly "A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction." If we assert here, in Wiki's voice (by adding this incident to this article as a "terrorist incident"), that this was a terrorist incident, then (because there is only one suspect and that suspect is named in the article we link to) we are, in effect, saying that that person is guilty, and that contravenes WP:BLP. Also we would be contravening another "rule", WP:VER, because the source only supports it being declared by the police as a "terror incident", which only applies to the way they investigate it and the powers available to them. It does not dictate what the final court verdict will be, or what the judge might say about the motives. Adding unproven allegations does not improve an article, it makes it worthless and contemptable. The thing to do is to wait for proof, there is no rush. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:57, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Including it doesn't imply guilt or a conviction. Most of the entries on lists such as this one haven't resulted in convictions. Many crimes have (had) a prime suspect who hasn't been convicted, or whose conviction was overturned. Jim Michael (talk) 16:36, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

DeFacto is correct. The inclusion criteria of this article do not override WP:BLP. Legally, terrorism is a specific type of crime. We can't call a living person accused of terrorist crimes but not convicted thereof a terrorist in WP:WikiVoice. Likewise, we can't include them in a list of terrorists, call the attack itself a terrorist attack in WP:WikiVoice, or include the attack in a list of terrorist attacks. Wikipedia's editors must not do the court's job of determining whether the suspect is guilty and of what, and this would be doing precisely that.

A couple of other things I want to add not directly related to the question of whether we can include this entry: "Terror" and "terrorism" are not interchangeable, so we can't cite a source saying "terror attack" for a designation of "terrorist attack", for instance. Moreover, we're supposed to have WP:INTEXT attribution for the "terrorist" designation for every single entry per MOS:TERRORIST. Finally, WP:Generally reliable sources are only reliable within their accepted areas of expertise (WP:GENREL gives this as one example of when generally reliable sources are not reliable: the material [...] is outside the source's accepted areas of expertise (a well-established news organization is normally reliable for politics but not for philosophy)), and making decisions about what does and does not constitute a particular type of crime in specific cases is not within the area of expertise of news organizations. TompaDompa (talk) 23:25, 3 November 2021 (UTC)