Talk:2015 Zvornik police station shooting

Content
Shame on you. This has nothing to do with wahabbist movement, but revenge. Killed police officer was involved in Srebrenica genocide, which I will put in the article. --Ispocetka (talk) 10:55, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Srebrenica is not genocide, but because Srebrenica is a political manipulation. --77.46.236.67 (talk) 12:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

If killing 8000+ people is not genocide, how could killing one man be terrorist attack? --Ispocetka (talk) 13:43, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I believe we can agree it's a disputed matter. However, the source used to claim that the killed policeman was somehow involved in those killings is hardly a reliable source. --Yerevani Axjik (talk) 20:34, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Unverified claim that the killed policeman and the wounded one were involved in Srebrenica killings.
There is a claim, made by Saff, a Bosnian Islamist magazine, which is hardly reliable, that the two policeman, one of whom was killed (Dragan Đurić and Željko Gajić) were allegedly involved in the Srebrenica killings. The claim made by Saff magazine was then reported by 24 sata, a yellow press from Croatia, and under the question mark in its title - "Izrešetao policajce u Zvorniku jer su učestvovali u genocidu u Srebrenici? [(He) Massacred the Policemen in Zvornik Because They Particited in the Genocide in Srebrenica?]".

Saff, an Islamist magazine, has titles such as "Saint Sava's (Serb Orthodox) Camp for Training of Little Chetniks at Ozren", "A Desperate Act of a Victim of 23 Years of Constant Genocide" , "Why Bosniak Political and Religious Representatives don't Stop the Census Genocide" , etc. It's ridiculous to take this magazine as a reliable source.

--Yerevani Axjik (talk) 01:22, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Agree that SAFF is extremist, chauvinist drivel but the two officers are clearly on the BiH prosecutor office's list. It doesn't mean they did any killing, it just means witnesses identified them as being in Srebrenica or its vicinity at the time of the massacre (and the BiH prosecutor's office suspects them of committing war crimes because of this fact alone). This doesn't provide a motive for the attack, either. But facts are facts, and the two men's participation as RS policemen in Srebrenica in '95 is well sourced. 23 editor (talk) 02:37, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Where do you see their names - there's no Dragan Đurić and Željko Gajić on the list. Look better. Never mind. --Yerevani Axjik (talk) 13:22, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Using a table titled Spisak ratnih zločinaca koji rade na visokim funkcijama i u policiji from the Bosniak nationalist site Patria as a source for a "BiH prosecutor office's list"?! As you said, it does not provide a motive for the attack, but, User:23 editor, what's with your posting such a link here in this context? Vladimir  (talk) 17:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Patria isn't a reliable source, as I showed earlier. It is closely linked to the Bosniak politicians. Another thing, if we know that Republika Srpska and its officials do not characterise the event from Srebrenica as genocide, is it not a bit strange that they would refer to it as such in their official document where they apparently list all those "wart criminals" who participated in the event? --AnulBanul (talk) 17:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The list is official(?), wasn't written up by RS authorities and includes any and all serving police officers who were with the VRS or RS MUP in eastern Bosnia during the war (i.e. it's just a compilation of policemen who were in the vicinity of Srebrenica, regardless of their involvement in the killings or lack thereof). Serbs describe it as propaganda serving the interests of the Bosniak political elite, and RS officials have condemned it as false. 23 editor (talk) 19:35, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, if I remember well, Patria and Saff claimed it is a "2004 Republika Srpska government report on the Srebrenica massacres". However, I doubt that the Republika Srpska government would use the term "genocide" for the Srebrenica event. The article from Glas Srpske states it is made up by the Bosnian Muslim media. Apparently, it has nothing to do with the Srpska government. Patria is closely liked to the SDA (ruling Bosnia Muslim party), while Saff is a radical Islamist magazine. Both cannot be counted as reliable sources. --AnulBanul (talk) 20:09, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Shouting "Allahu akbar"
There are three sources used claiming that the attacker never shouted "Allahu akbar", as, according to their claim, was reported by the Press RS. However, only titles mention this, while the article doesn't. The articles say he cursed at the policemen, but, the earlier report about shouting "Allahu akbar" wasn't denied at all.

The source used is a news agency called Patria, whos reliability had been already challenged -. The "news agency" mostly comments on other events, rather than reporting news. Another source used is fokus.ba -, while the third source is bportal, a nationalist portal, whos titles are ridiculous. I'd rather say, several Bosnian Muslim news reports deny he ever said "Allahu akbar". --Yerevani Axjik (talk) 15:39, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Yerevani Axjik, your only defense and explanation is that all Bosnian media which doesn't demonize Bosniaks is either nationalist or unreliable. The same could be said for most Serbian news outlets, so you have no real argument. The fact of the matter is that none of us were there and we only have what the media is reporting to work off of. Some sources claim that he said "Allahu Akbar" (No evidence that he ever said this), while others report that he cursed and threatened the officers (This is on the stations security video).--Sabahudin9 (talk) 05:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * No, no. You've got it wrong. The news portals that have reported this claimed that the Press RS reported he never shouted Allahu akbar, though, if you read the article from the Press, it's clear that this has never been said. --AnulBanul (talk) 15:23, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Saff - an Islamist magazine
Many, even Google has characterised Saff as an Islamist magazine. I have made this point earlier, and for making things more clear I'll repeat myself. --AnulBanul (talk) 01:11, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Agree, SAFF can't be considered a reliable source let alone a news site. Some of their "reporting" is extreme even by fundamentalist standards. 23 editor (talk) 02:01, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Pending investigation, who is relevant ?!
Who is relevant in categorization of any attack on state territory ? Beside few preliminary statements, and all these media reports, what official report of which state department stated precisely a categorizations, motives, who named organized group(s), who connected individuals to a group(s), distinguished leader(s) and ideologues ? Time-sensitivity is completely disregarded as well, and under refs section "news reports" sub-section is created with nearly two dozens of these Internet portals reports almost all of them produced in first three days. OK, except three official press releases by three branches of govt, all three preliminary, which other really mainstream official news agencies appears in refs, except two very early press releases by Reuters. Further, Council of Ministers in their report from May refused to categorize attack as terrorist let alone "Islamic", and alleged "Allahu Akbar" shout was not mentioned at all.

Entire article is based on "hearsay" reported by biased and sensationalist press, with all kinds of different agendas behind smokescreen of "Wahabism" and "Islamic terrorism", mostly tabloid kind.

Opportunistic politicians really did cried their lungs out, calling attacks "Islamic" and perp "Wahhabi", connected who knows with whom and where. But, all these statements were told in first few days, and most importantly, in unofficial capacity, as an individuals or in chorus doesn't matter.

Before investigation even began the Minister of Interior of the Republika Srpska, Dragan Lukač, said that the assailant was probably a Wahhabist and called the shooting an act of terrorism. Mind you, Ibrić was not under any kind of surveillance, he even acquired license for his guns ! How the hell he could know ! Mektić, however, after preliminary investigations and later after investigation was concluuded, reiterated that no connection was established between Ibrić and any alleged organizations. His statements were in line with July 2015 the BiH Prosecutor's office report and official position that office is giving up on charging two other individuals arrested just after the attack, who were purportedly suspected of being connected to Nerdin Ibrić and possibly involved in the attack, but no evidence was ever found for their involvement and alleged connection to Ibrić.

To this day investigation is still underway, and no new infos are produced by official state departments.

So my question is why is this article linked to International Islamic terrorism and Islamism in one way or another, via Infobox, Templates and Categories, and so on, and so forth.

And who nominated this near attack page, which could be easily interpreted as deliberate exaggeration with a purpose of furthering war-time political and ethno-religious strife within a country and exploiting it for purpose of slander and demonization of entire group, for "Good article" ?

And how "lone-wolfe" terrorist became "Wahhabi" and "Islamic" terrorist, based on tabloid reports, could ever stand for so long undisputed ?-- ౪ • • •  ౪  • • • 99° ४  00:28, 4 May 2017 (UTC)


 * This above post from 2017 is still relevant, and any POV controversial labeling based on initial media reports is unacceptable, until the courts rule on this case, and we get some official and evidence-based assessment and outcome.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  19:32, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Cour's rullig is a primary source. There are already secondary reliable sources. Or do you want more of them to be added? Plus, the attacker's dead. You cannot have a trial against a dead person. Governor Sheng (talk) 14:39, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Primary source or not, you have no sources at all, that can be taken seriously. Initial biased media reports are not acceptable in such a controversial labeling, no way. What some tabloid online or in print said an hour or 10 hours or 48 hours, etc, after the fact, is irrelevant and unusable. Read about labeling events terrorism and people terrorists.  ౪ Santa ౪  99°  15:13, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, I know your modus operandi here. This long and unnecessary discussion will end with me adding several scholarly sources (even though reliable sources are already used here; for example Talk:Jusuf Barčić) that tell the same as the sources already used. Idk why are you so upset by this "label". All sources call it terrorism, domestic intistutions and foregin embassies refer to it as such. Except you. And, as your modus operandi you ask the impossible things be listed as socues - the court's ruling on a dead guy - otherwise you will not "recognise" anything. Really disruptive and biased editing. But whatever. Governor Sheng (talk) 15:17, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Do not go into "modus operandi", your activities on Croatian language Wikiprdia in relation to your POV on matters of Bosnian Muslims was rejected on the same grounds, and that's your home language Wikipedia. Jusuf Barčić is an excellent candidate for deletion but has nothing to do with this biased POV pushing here. This article is slanted but not tagged as such; based on initial media reports but not tagged as such. Now it will be. ౪ Santa ౪  99°  15:25, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I assume you speak Croatian too, so, why don't you join me there instead of being an uninvolved bystander? Governor Sheng (talk) 15:49, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Making this kind of controversial labeling without any new reliable source that would confirm this kind of new inclusions (without consensus) can only end in ANI report. ౪ Santa ౪  99°  16:19, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The book by Azinović, along with other authors is a reliable source. Governor Sheng (talk) 20:13, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Though, I'll say, regarding Jusuf Barčić... Man, you wanted to see the article deleted, only it to be even more referenced, with number of readings going crazy (. I think it's one of the most read Bosnia-Herzegovina-related articles. Interesting. Cheers for that, I guess. Governor Sheng (talk) 22:06, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

POV and Unbalanced
Article is entirely based on initial media reports and reactions. But the problem does not stop there - all these media reports are in most of the cases based in Serbia and Croatia, which could be seen as a hostile media environment toward Bosnian Muslims and Bosnia and Herzegovina in general. For instance, Bosnian newspaper Dnevni Avaz is specifically labeled as "Sarajevo based" which basically says "Bosnian Muslim controlled" news-claim, argument, whatever, while all those media outlets coming from non-Bosnian Muslim controlled places, such as Banja Luka, Belgrade, Zagreb, Split, etc. are not labeled in similar fashion. These media outlets comprise vast majority of used sources. A block of text deal with possible sinister and terrorist motives and based on these not-so-neutral media outlets, while those who did not agree, like Mektić, who is "a Bosnian Serb politician and former criminal investigator who served as Minister of Security from 2015 to 2019" as a member of SDS political party, are basically one sentence expose. ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  16:40, 2 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Sounds very biased review of media from Croatia and Serbia... Are you characterising them as chauvinist in general or I'm missing your point? The sources used here are considered generally reliable and not hostile to any ethnic group, nor in general nor specifically. You should back that up with some serious proof. Also, other sources used, for example the one from a professor from Sarajevo (Azinović), co-authored by a Bosnian Muslim (I assume), clearly states the attack was an act of Islamic terrorism. Which is in line with what these media reports are saying. So, your claim apout the article being someone's POV or unbalanced are not backed by absolutely anything except your own POV and bias. Governor Sheng (talk) 20:12, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * What Azinović has to say on the subject? ౪ Santa ౪  99°  21:04, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * "The Task Force was created after the spring 2015 terrorist attack on a police station in Zvornik, but by the end of 2015, was described as lacking “real cooperation or synergy” and participating agencies were said to be “without real commitment.", p. 79.
 * "The two individuals who carried out terrorist attacks in BiH in 2015 could be said to fit this profile. These attacks – on the police station in Zvornik in April 2015, and on members of the Armed Forces of BiH in Rajlovac (near Sarajevo) in November 2015 – were both perpetrated by individuals who cannot be considered typical militant Salafists.", p. 86.
 * And so on and so forth. Governor Sheng (talk) 21:14, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * And ? Now you are the one who's going to draw your conclusions and edit article upon your POV!? Sorry, but that's not the way we are working on the project. You are welcome to argue you position based on new reliable sources, but it's not up to you to synthesize something sources does not claim. If you continue to make those changes without consensus, that you will have to be prepared to argue your position at ANI (or 3RR), which I believe is weak on both instances - sources and consensus. ౪ Santa ౪  99°  21:37, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Where do you see synth? What are you on about? It's clear as it can get - it was a terrorist attack, stated by the author, not myself. Not only you're edit-warring, but you're doing so by disregarding sources. And this is not your first time doing so. You're a disruptive editor. No consensus is necessary here. The sources are clear. Governor Sheng (talk) 21:39, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Look, I am not going to play cat and mouse with you. Your edits clearly make controversial labeling statements (MOS:TERRORIST/MOS:TERRORISM), which you are making based on drawing your own conclusions from one source which mentions Zvornik in passing. Without reading I can only imagine what is the context, based on the fact that you have been able to find these two superficial statements in that Anzulovic source, that does not make any definitive claim, nor mention Islamists. You really need to look in the mirror before making "you're a disruptive editor" accusation. ౪ Santa ౪  99°  21:48, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Lol, it characterises it as a terrorist attack, and no, it doesn't do so "just in passng". How am I making my own conclusion, if the author states "terrorist attack on a police station in Zvornik". Where's here a space for my conclusions? I'm really asking you again, what the fuck are you on about? Governor Sheng (talk) 21:50, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * And after eight years editors editing on this article, now you come without any new sources to make new interpretation for us? ౪ Santa ౪  99°  21:51, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * As far as I understand, the "interpretation" you're talking about was here for years, wasn't it? Removed only by you, if I see correctly from editing history. So, basically, all other editors (literally) said or did not disputed that the attack was a terrorist one in nature, except you. And yes, since you "requested" new sources to be introduced, as you sometimes do, and other editors in good faith do so (even though the existing sources were sufficient). And you have the audacity to present your biased objection as "eight years of editors editing here"? It's not the first time you try to "minimise" the terrorist part in numerous attacks, which is funny enough in itself. Governor Sheng (talk) 21:55, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Really? Editor from Serbian POV have nominated this article for deletion on the base of the same argument I am making. Editors were adding, just like you did today, and removing these controversial labels for years, and if I was the (last) one who removed it based on well-argued reason, then good. I really don't want to discuss trivial matters - you are welcome to add new info and new interpretations based on new relevant sources, if you have non, then reaching a consensus will be hard. ౪ Santa ౪  99°  22:04, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * How can you tell these editors were of "Serbian POV"? Have you some dislike for Serbians and Croatians? You're characterising them very easly as hating Bosnian Muslims, even reliable sources based in Zagreb or Belgrade. Can you link me where these editors of "Serbian POV" were removign "terrorist" label? I would be thankful. Governor Sheng (talk) 22:09, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Because they received logged warnings for their editing. ౪ Santa ౪  99°  22:19, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * By the way: read WP:SYNTH if you can't see what is synth in your POV reading of those two or three sentences. ౪ Santa ౪  99°  21:50, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:SYNTH requires making your own conclusion from two sources. Which here isn't the case, since tha author hismelf clearly states "terrorist attack in Zvornik". Literally, there's no space for me to draw my own conclusion here. Governor Sheng (talk) 21:56, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * You can make synth by taking two unrelated statements from the same source. ౪ Santa ౪  99°  22:06, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Please, point me to these two unrelated statements. Governor Sheng (talk) 22:10, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Entire second sentence. ౪ Santa ౪  99°  22:11, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * And what about the first sentence? Governor Sheng (talk) 22:12, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Though, I'll say, I'm curious, what two premises from the source did I synthesised to draw my own conclusion that the attack in Zvornik was terrorist one? Can you quote these two (or more)? I would be very thankful. Governor Sheng (talk) 22:03, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Your second sentence quoted above is in direct and complete contradiction to all your assertions and conclusions. ౪ Santa ౪  99°  22:08, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * And what about the first one? Actually used in the article. Governor Sheng (talk) 22:10, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * What about it? It's one sentence that points to the fact that there are no conclusions, and is made in source written in 2015, while not one official conclusion existed. To this you need to respect MOS:TERRORIST/MOS:TERRORISM - you can't invent entire narrative based on one inconclusive claim drawn from one sentence, which is then completely contradicted by second. ౪ Santa ౪  99°  22:15, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Lol, making up your own rules now? Nah, it will not work that way, sorry. Source is from 2015, which is relatively new. What is "official conclusion"? :) I'm not creating an entire narrative based on one "inconclusive" claim, but with bunch and bunch of other sources, in line with "official" conslucsions from the Council of Ministers of Bosnia and Herzegovina, US embassy and so forth. Governor Sheng (talk) 22:20, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, Bryjka says:
 * "After the break-up of the “Islamic State,” jihadists were forced to return to their roots in terms of their operations. Direct military action was replaced with the clandestine activity of the terrorist cells, consisting of radicalization, recruitment, and planning of terrorist attacks. Currently, the structures of Islamic extremists operating in the Western Balkans have the limited capacity to launch large and complex simultaneous attacks. Instead, selective and small-scale attacks on police, military, religious institutions, and international structures (e.g., EUFOR, KFOR, EULEX, UNMIK, and others) are real threats. Such incidents occurred in Bosnia and Herzegovina in April 2015 in Zvornik, where one police officer was killed by a Salafist and another wounded. A similar situation occurred in November in the suburbs of Sarajevo (Rajlovac), where two soldiers were killed during the detention of an Islamist from France. In the vicinity of Mostar, there was a failed bombing of General Anto Jeleč, the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of Bosnia and Herzegovina."


 * Azinović is not alone, he is lo and beholed, joined by Bryjka from 2021. I hope you've got nothing againt Polish people? Governor Sheng (talk) 22:23, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, from other news reports (after 2015):
 * RTRS
 * Ministry of Internal Affairs of Republika Srpska - talking about "official conclusions"
 * Bljesak.info
 * BN
 * Nezavisne novine
 * Dnevnik.ba
 * Dnevni.ba.
 * These are one of the most read media in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Are these problematic as well? Governor Sheng (talk) 22:34, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Really, you could not find any other media outlets beside from Republic of Srpska, tabloids from Serbia? How can it be "official" if the investigation was never concluded - at least not with a conclusions you would want. But, what about NEUTRALSOURCE is there any beside conservative and rightwing or outright nationalistic media under the thumb of nationalistic politics? Say, RFE, DW, BalkanInsight, and some such more neutral and more reliable sources. ౪ Santa ౪  99°  22:43, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * First of all, all what I did, I did in good faith. Now 1) sources, whether from 2015 or 2021, are equally valid. 2) there are enough of these sources, which are reliable, to categorise the article as terrorist, 3) the authors might mention something "in passing" or in what ever way, it doesn't diminish the significance of the thing said nor it makes it less reliable.
 * You made absolutely zero points to validate your argument, like you always do. Governor Sheng (talk) 10:53, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

, I was summoned here by the bot, I don't think that opening a RFC is the correct procedure based off WP:RFCBEFORE, this is from what I can see a dispute between two editors, thus a third opinion might be a better place to go. Furthermore, I think the question can be greatly clarified, perhaps WP:RSPS might work better also?  Just ' i ' yaya  11:44, 3 February 2023 (UTC)


 * You are correct, I always get confused by these dispute resolution steps. Thank you. Governor Sheng (talk) 11:46, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Third opinion by Freoh
It seems like there are a lot of disagreements here, and I won't answer everything mentioned in the third opinion request, but I will agree that with that the "terrorist" label is contentious and should only be used with in-text attribution, not in wikivoice. I see no reason to italicize it. &mdash;&hairsp; Freoh 17:46, 8 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks Freoh for taking a part in 3O. I will comment briefly. The main problem of this piece is that official stance does not label it yet, no matter what media, slanted at any side, said in the past, mostly in the first few weeks, maybe months. State official law-enforcement and judiciary institutions does not label it "Islamic terrorism", "Islamism", and even grapples with the term terrorism alone because it could be a case of lone-wolf terror act, but it could also very well be a case of mass shooting and a hate-crime, driven by very specific and non-ideological motive - revenge and hatred. Until we get official stance by those institution tasked with investigation and proceedings, so that we can use them as primary sources, and which will certainly incite many new media reports to be used as a secondary, we are obliged to avoid contentious labeling in wikivoice (including categorization) or solely on media sensationalism which appeared in days and weeks after the fact and without possibility to cite any official stance by judiciary and governmental institutions. ౪ Santa ౪  99°  18:54, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The description at uses some ambiguous language: This category lists attacks by non-state-aligned groups that did or intended to create civilian casualties, in significant numbers, as opposed to hate crimes, serial killers, and other criminal activity. How many people were "intended" to be killed? Was it "significant"? Are police officers "civilians"? My personal opinion is that this category is more contentious than it is useful and that it shouldn't exist, but it looks like this was previously discussed in 2008.      &mdash;&hairsp; Freoh 19:32, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Concur. I just went through that 2008 discussion, and it seems riddled with both prejudicial and procedural problems in closure and subsequent Discussion deletion review - in particular Sarah777 statements came to my attention as being sound, but they simply ignored her arguments. (I noted that in the meantime some categories were deleted, few are gone after all, there are some red links in that discussion.) Now, in this case, which is really specific, we simply have no concluding stance by the government to begin with, so who is going to play a role of judge and jury - certainly not sensationalist media. ౪ Santa ౪  99°  20:08, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I just realized, are saying that category is still there? I removed those contentious claims with a nav template and category, which are added during a discussion and without a consensus. If it's there, have you removed it yet, because I totally agree, all those contentious labeling without sources should be removed or reported.. ౪ Santa ౪  99°  19:51, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I have not made any changes to this article. decided to keep the  in 2008, and this article is still in several of its subcategories. I would support removing this article from the contentious categories, and if you proposed their deletion, then I'd support that as well.      &mdash;&hairsp; Freoh 20:42, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, I will wait usual period before removing those contentious bits - again. I am also involved in some other similarly repetitive disputes elsewhere, that taking too much time from my schedule. And as for the category deletion, that's a slippery slope, and would require lots of time, but also some research in previous discussion, beside 2008.Category:Terrorist incidents. One would require checking entire tree, to learn if it makes any sense proposing it again, or if there are others titled inappropriately or too vaguely, etc. Maybe, better yet would be to check how editors use categories in that tree, and maybe redefine what category is supposed to mean - for instance, I agree with you that there should be different, better description and not one you quoted above. I am a bit constrained with time, spent on couple of boards discussions, on real life, so I barely make constructive contribution in article edits lately. But I will check this issue when occasion presents itself. ౪ Santa ౪  99°  22:08, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you'd probably get some pushback if you proposed deleting that category. At the very least, I think that there should be clear guidelines on what the criteria are for adding something to the category. Given that it's a contentious label, it seems reasonable to require that the term is used in academic sources. Whatever the criteria, they should be clearly documented at . (Also, either state terrorism should be included, or the category should be renamed to something like " terrorist incidents".)     &mdash;&hairsp; Freoh 01:28, 11 February 2023 (UTC)