Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of terrorist incidents, July–December 2013


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:20, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

List of terrorist incidents, July–December 2013

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:OR and POV. Author chooses incidents to his own likings and ignores discussions. The Banner talk 13:21, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep but remove acts by states (e.g. US drone attacks) and other dubious entries. This is a subpage of List of terrorist incidents which claims to be "a list of non-state terrorist incidents". There's a risk of POV with anything about terrorism, but it's an important subject and content disputes can be dealt with in various ways without deletion (removing state terrorism also makes it less contentious). --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:58, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Why censor one thing but not the other, this is diffently a  issue with wp:npov i would say a  rewrite is needed.  Jguard18 Critique Me  14:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * IGNORE discussion? You did not reply to the commetns that you initiated and removed it per your liking/. Conversely I partook in the discussion. Its POV without state incidents and we had this discussion when the article awas under the different titole. SNOW close here as deletion is not an excuse for consensus where discussion is ongoing.
 * And as I write the OP first tags the article, makes ONE comment on talk and never return to discuss, then removes, upon revert, he nominated this for deletion (with still no comment in discussion other than the one to express his view which he accuses me of violating when I avctually partook in the discussion. Seems he has no understanding of discussion, it is NOT based on one editor making his view on the talk page and expecting it to stay). DISCUSS.Lihaas (talk) 09:33, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Ignoring the fact and discussion, yes. You have by now restored the controversial actions at least six times without any comment. On the talk page, two people said that is shouldn't be there, and you still restored. And when you reply with a comment that reads as "I want it, I maintain the list, I put it in and you shut up" I do know that I have a POV-pusher on my hand. The Banner talk 10:44, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry but I HAVE commented to your discussion and then waited for reply before other reverts did not discuss. You want the definition the onus is on YOU to seek that via consensus. Show me where I isaid I made a list and I want it and you should shut up? Please done distort realirty to gfit your views. There is NO version where I said that. The othe ruser made a suggestion starting with the key "EYE OF THE BEHOLDER", that you forget to read what you like? And in turn I responded to him with a suggestion too to move to the previous incarnation. Then there was no reply for 4 days while you still reverted without consensus.Lihaas (talk) 11:23, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Seven times now. The Banner talk 11:25, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You can count till the cows come homwe to suit your stats, but the fact remains you did not reply for 4 days while reverting till you were called to.
 * Not to mention your personal attacks vs. content discussions.(Lihaas (talk) 11:27, 29 October 2013 (UTC)).
 * Per Colapeninsula, the cited page mentions in the first page "The following is a list of non-state terrorist incidents" (emphasis added)Lihaas (talk) 11:29, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I would like to add my two cents here - I used to do the MAJORITY of edits on these articles until around June of this year, when I finally gave up because of User:Lihaas and his constant complaints, reverts, and otherwise disruptive behavior. It anyone bothers to look at previous article of the same type, especially in 2012, you can clearly see that they are way more concise, contain only the most relevant information and in general attacks that are somehow noteworthy - either through sheer number of casualties, symbolic importance of attack, or other reasons. We had numerous discussions on talk pages because he kept adding every single little IDF incident (for example), or kept expanding description for attacks in Pakistan to include stuff like street names, full names of doctors and police officials, etc. I am a serious scholar of the topic and truly believe it is important to have these articles - maybe even in the form that I managed to keep during 2011 and 2012 - but at some point I could not keep up with his constant warring, so I just gave up and went back to editing pages on the Iraqi insurgency and some other conflicts that are of personal interest to me, leaving this July - December article to its fate. As you can see, the results have not been pretty, and in this shape the article is total !@#$ - it needs to be HEAVILY trimmed, cleaned of more than a few events that do not fit in there, not to mention many of the death tolls are way off since no one bothers to update them after day 1. On a side note, I have seen time and time again other people go to Lihaas' talk page and complain of him basically enforcing his own views as reason enough to change WHATEVER in an article, and I would bet this is not the first one that he has almost completely destroyed and chased people out of. THat having been said, I vouch to try and bring things back in line, if the article is kept, and I personally vote to Keep it, but definitely have a discussion on the length of entries and the inclusion of dubious stuff like "state terrorism" - Lihaas kept arguing that there is NO clear definition of terrorism, despite me pasting more than a few in one of the talk pages for an earlier "List of ____" article - if needed, anyone can look those up, and I will certainly go back to them as proof of concept. Skycycle (talk) 13:11, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Here are the earlier articles that are almost 100% done by myself - January - June 2013 and July - December 2012. I want to point everyone's attention to this discussion on the the January-June talk page that might serve as proof to what I said above, as well as the one over here on July-December, where Lihaas even says "Sorry no. Yuor definition of terrorism is not the only one prevaent. you cant say "do a little resarch", if you want to assert this the onus is on you to prove this is the case and not personal opinion (a la IDONTLIKEIT). There certainly is not 1 definition of terrorism worldwide, thats an opinion. There is state and non-state sterrorism.Originally meaning political violence, it has [duiously been expanded]. racial and religions violence (particualrly the latter) are a product of politics. Just because estalished state institutions done label it so doesnt change the meaining" (typos kept). Despite the fact that I provided a lengthy answer with links to universally accepted definitions of terrorism by institutions with a global outreach such as the UN, as well as the EU, there was no reply from him. So there you have it, in a nutshell - I am not THAT familiar with what these kinds of editors are called in WP, but certainly when it fits his own bill, he works it around - meaning that I have to "prove" what terrorism is, as if the UN definition is somehow untrustworthy, but he can edit and expand and basically do whatever he likes, because he can always quote one or another rule and twist them to serve his own purposes. Skycycle (talk) 13:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * And likewise you will see that I stopped editing such pages because of giving up due to you (much as you clam now) and left the page to you to edit ;;as you saw fit. So while you say I dint reply, I didn't edit to my version, as you claim, either. That was beside the fact that I disagree with any definition, it was your version of writing it up that drove me away. There are 2 sides to very coin. There was however the same discussion and consensus that tmoed the page to List of armed conflcits and incidents and a LACK of discussion in moving it back to terrorist incidents. (vcertainly I as the main user of that page was not informed of a move discussion before seeing it moved)Lihaas (talk) 20:36, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I adore your way of NOT replying to most of what I said, but just what you find useful - it was never MY definition that you "did not like", it's the United Nations definition of terrorism *cough* ... I was not involved in any move, and once more - please proof read before you post, it's very weird to see elementary spelling mistakes that you made because (I assume) you were banging away on a keyboard. We all make the effort, so why not you? Skycycle (talk) 18:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - again, I have a real concern that this will become a content fork, along with the other similar lists, from terrorism. I will not oppose its being kept. Bearian (talk) 16:53, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - basic WP:GNG. Information in it can be discussed at the discussion page.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:50, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.