Jump to content

Talk:List of terrorist incidents in 2008

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


2008 Gaza attacks

[edit]

How is this not a Terrorist attack. 300 innocent people have already died from illegal Israeli Defence Force shelling. They have injured hundreds more. There is no way to classify this under any other label than a terrorist attack.

Killed terrorism count in casualties?

[edit]

Does killed terrorists during a suicide attack or something else have to be count in the number of casualties ? Kormin (talk) 18:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would think so, tho we should summarize what the sources say. The question is what to do if the sources used for one incident adds them, and another incident's does not - the list would be uncomparable. -- Jeandré, 2008-02-17t21:25z

John Granville and driver killed in a terrorist incident?

[edit]

I've removed it again since there is no source (as required by wp:v) that indicates it was a terrorist incident.

The given source states: "CNN cannot independently verify the authenticity of the statement or the legitimacy of the group. The State Department was unaware of the claim, spokesman Sean McCormack said Friday, adding that the investigation into the deaths is in the initial stages." At the end of the article it mentions that Sudan "sponsor[ed] terrorism since 1993" but that that changed in 2005, but even then the source does not say it was a Sudan sponsored incident.

AP states "Sudanese officials have insisted the assassination was not a terrorist attack, though a previously unknown group called Ansar al-Tawhid took responsibility for the killing in an Internet chat room on a militant Web site. The claim could not be verified." -- Jeandré, 2008-02-17t21:31z

OK for John Granville incident, but I put Mogadishu again with news sources. A video is also available here: http://fr.truveo.com/Mogadishu-road-bomb-kills-women/id/1609153533 Take the Daily Star video. Kormin (talk) 22:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please be careful, you reverted the article putting many errors back in. Please use edit summaries when editing. The Mogadishu entry also had the injured number wrong, the USA Today and the Times of India sources are the same AP article except that USA Today deleted the qat quote, and none of the sources say it was a terrorist incident - in fact the China Daily says "No one has claimed responsibility for the blast." -- Jeandré, 2008-02-19t13:52z
Ok, I won't add it back until the investigation finds reported evidence. But hey, while you're at it, Januay 19th - is intent to terrorize allowed? If it didn't cause an incident, it should be removed? Mikebar (talk) 07:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, removed. -- Jeandré, 2008-02-19t13:52z

Remove totals?

[edit]

According to [1] there were "12,000 [terrorists] attacks between 2003 and mid-2007", so since we're missing huge amounts of terrorist incidents I think it would be better to remove our year totals. -- Jeandré, 2008-02-19t15:58z

Embassy burning

[edit]

Is 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence#Serbian reaction, specifically the embassy attacks, considered terrorism? Mikebar (talk) 08:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that we have to be careful about what we consider to be terrorism. The embassy attacks by Serbs I do not consider to be terrorism as much as I consider them to be an impulsive expression of anger. I believe that most terrorist incidents are planned and specifically target civilians. We have to differentiate between what is true terrorism designed to further an ideological agenda and what is truly just an expression of anger. By the way, I am aware that the two are closely related, but I am assuming that anyone who is intelligent can differentiate between violent displays of emotion and true acts of terrorism. Hizrael 17:01, 06 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.126.173.118 (talk) [reply]
If there's a reliable source calling it terrorism it belongs here; if not, anyone can remove it. -- Jeandré, 2008-03-09t17:37z

Location Column?

[edit]

I think it would make the table overall more presentable and organised, if the location (including nation flag and city, like Pakistan Islamabad. In addition, how about a column for the relevant Wikipedia article? — Lasse Havelund (p · t · c) 21:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

June 8 knife attacks in Tokyo an act of terrorism?

[edit]

I would argue that a terrorist incident would indicate some sort of political motivation or have political goals. It seems to me that the attacker in this incident was upset with society and his place in it. Would this incident not draw more parallels with Columbine-type massacres that have no overt political goals in mind? -Rdavi404 05:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I removed the incident because none of the cited sources refer to it as an act of terrorism. -Rdavi404 05:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdavi404 (talk • contribs)

Lack of casualties mean that an incident isn't terrorist related?

[edit]

Anons keep removing July entries of ETA bombings. Reason cited is that the explosions did not cause any casualties and therefore are not worthy of this article. I would argue that the count of casualties should not be a factor in determining whether or not an event is a "terrorist incident." Rdavi404 19:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

You are completely right. They should be re-instated. (i attached the 'see also' at the bottom of the page to add them. (and there have been 4-5 casualties in a 12 month period, albeit 2 were in Dec 2007) Lihaas (talk) 17:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Include 2008 Xinjiang attack?

[edit]

This attack was removed from this page. If you go to the talk page for 2008 Xinjiang attack, there is a big debate over whether or not it is truly a terrorist incident. I don't think anyone will be able to agree on a definition of terrorism, so my question is whether or not we should include the attack on this list. It looks like the debate centers around the notion that since the attack targeted police, rather than civilians, it should not count as a terrorist attack. My concern is that the same rationale could be used for countless other entries on this list. rdavi404 15:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

It also appears that people are concerned that Chinese state media, who has a bias, referred to the incident as terrorism. My opinion is that even if the incident is a borderline terrorist incident it should be included. -rdavi404 15:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdavi404 (talk • contribs)

If you're going to include attacks on government officials as terrorism, than this list should also include it everytime an Iraqi officer is killed (which happens every day). Don't bother. - Pieter_v (talk) 23:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Country Event took place missing

[edit]

How there only be a flag describing the country the incident took place? I don't know the what country the city listed is in, and I don't know the flags of countries. It should be on there.Cosprings (talk) 21:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you hold your mouse cursor over the flag icon or click on the icon itself, it will tell you what country the flag represents.--RDavi404 (talk) 18:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kauhajoki school shooting?

[edit]

Is the Kauhajoki school shooting a terrorist incident? I don't think school shootings should be included in the list. It doesn't seem that there is a real motive, political or otherwise. According to the wiki article, the shooter's motive for the shooting was: "I hate the human race." I'm going to remove the entry. --RDavi404 (talk) 13:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added it because the Virginia Tech massacre from 2007 is listed on 2007 incidents. I thought about it before I added it but once I saw the VT entry I felt better about adding it. --Smuckers It has to be good 17:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, according to the terrorist definition it wouldn't really cqualify as the it supposed to be a "means of coercion" or, alternatively, with political purposes.
These school shooting aren't political. As for coercion, not sure what was being "coerced." Lihaas (talk) 17:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move

[edit]

According to the Wikipedia guidelines the words terrorist shouldn't be used. Perhaps a move to an article entitled "List of terror incidents, 2008" or "List of terror attacks, 2008."

Of course, there I see no reason to argue. If someone finds this better for some reason i'm fair game for it. Just bringing out the point on wikipedia guidelines. Lihaas (talk) 17:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Silence can well constitute consensus on this...using the word terrorist can imply violence for political means too. (the FBI once had this definition, but I don't have the source right now), using that logic even Turkey's attacks in Iraq would constitute terrorism, as would Lanka's bombing in the north. Lihaas (talk) 17:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

casualty count

[edit]

for the sake of research should we tally up the monthly count at the beginning of each month. I can tell you in the past this citation has been used to see the state of instability (as October's daily rituals are showing) Lihaas (talk) 17:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's a bad idea, but I think the casualty count wouldn't be accurate. Many incidents go unreported, and often the casualty counts for each incident are not updated. Additionally, different sources use different figures for casualties. Sometimes a suicide bomber is included, and sometimes an injured casualty dies in hospital days or weeks later. --RDavi404 (talk) 14:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Valid points you have. (I tried it on the ETA page, it's more accurate over there) Lihaas (talk) 23:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

U.S Airstrikes and terrorists acts

[edit]

I do not believe U.S airstrikes in Afghanistan or Pakistan are terrorist attacks. However they deserve to be mentioned in the Pakistan Northern Front War and Afghanistan Conflict. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jersay (talk • contribs) 22:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. US air strike are not acts of terrorism. At the top of the article, we clearly mention that "The following is a timeline of acts and failed attempts that can be considered non-state terrorism in 2008."

However, a military actions by a sovereign state can not be listed as an act of terrorism.Kormin (talk) 17:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't "military actions by a sovereign state" be listed as acts of terrorism? The FBI's own definition mention terrorism as violence for political purposes (i don't have the book that sourced right now, but it won't be too hard to find). Lihaas (talk) 23:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because ""military actions by a sovereign state" are called "state-terrorism" if you consider it as terrorism. But the article clearly mention that we list here only "non-state terrorism".
Otherwise, you can't list all military actions that kill people in the world. That's stupid. Let's just stick at "non-state terrorism". ThankKormin (talk) 13:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but now you have a scope shift. First you said it can't be listed as terrorism. That was wrong. But as state vs. non-state, then yes. I agree. Lihaas (talk) 20:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I simply don't understand why the U.S. air strikes continue to be added back onto the list. This list is for non-state incidents. Clearly they are acts conducted by a state. Any attack by the U.S. that some consider terrorism should be inlcuded on the article Allegations of state terrorism by the United States. I am going to re-remove the incidents. --RDavi404 (talk) 20:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I have expressed agreement with this idea (see below), the discussion is not complete yet. The intention is to remove it, but the question to move it arrives. (see the discussion below as to where to move it) Unless you've already moved it, if so then to where? Lihaas (talk) 06:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I fail to see the issue. The United States is a state actor. This list is intended for incidents conducted by non-state actors. I'm fairly sure the first line of the article establishes this. Can we not agree there is consensus on the issue of including incidents considered state acts of terrorism? I don't understand why we are war-reverting over this. --RDavi404 (talk) 15:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The original article that this 2008 list spun off from is List of terrorist incidents. Definition clearly indicates incidents conducted by non-state actors are only up for consideration. If you believe that the airstrikes are acts of terrorism, please add a section to the article Allegations of state terrorism by the United States.--RDavi404 (talk) 16:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree Kormin (talk) 18:05, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was never opposing this, per se. was trying to get sanction (above) for the move elsewhere. If that is fair enough, i'm fair game too. Lihaas (talk) 22:22, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only include bombs that target civilians

[edit]

There's a WP:TERRORIST policy on wikipedia which officially says that we can't name any group or insurgents terrorists. Therefore this list should be dedicated only to obvious vandalism, meaning attacks that deliberately target civilians. User:Lihaas for example has been adding regular skirmishes from conflict/war zones, but calling one group of insurgents terrorists is just a POV and not welcome here. There's other pages dedicated to skirmishes from war zones. Grey Fox (talk) 15:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the most part I agree. The word 'terrorist' is a loaded term and should be avoided. If you take a look at the definition of terrorism you'll see that there is no consensus on the term. With that in mind, if an attack occurs that seems to be aimed at members of the military/police in an area crowded with civilians should that not be considered an act of terror? For example, if a suicide bomber in Baghdad (or anywhere for that matter) attacks a military convoy near a market and any civilians in the area are seen as collateral damage by the bomber, should that incident not be included on the list? --RDavi404 (talk) 16:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's hard to answer. It depends on the amount of civilian casualties compared to the amount of military casualties. If for example a bomber blows up 8 iraqi police officers and killes 3 civilians along with it, that could be considered collateral damage. If it's the other way around, it seems like obvious terrorism. Grey Fox (talk) 16:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That should means ETA bombing in Spain doesn't belong to this article because they kill policemen or military ? It's seems more complicated :sKormin (talk) 16:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most ETA bombings target civilians, which is why they are condemned so much, and those acts deserve their mention here. When they target the Spanish military or police it's indeed not terrorism by definition. Remember that One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Grey Fox (talk) 18:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See, now we're coming to semantic differences. Right here we can't agree to a definition. The Pakistan attacks have a page, they can well go there. But the Ingushetia attack is explicitly a [failed] suicide bombing. The second ambush of 2-40 soldiers, I admit, can be outside the scope of terror incidents. Now when is that not considered a terrorist attack? By that definition a lot aren't.

And most ETA bombings explcitly do NOT target civilians, heck most bombings don't target any human casualties. but how do you define a terror attack by it's casualty tool? That is unique to Wikipedia if it is the case, which would, in turn, probably be synthesis.

btw- it's good this came to talk, i was simply saying take it talk before reverting. I was never advocating what should or should not arbitarily be there. Lihaas (talk) 23:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan attacks shouldn't go here either as long as they don't target civilians. They should simply go into the War in North-West Pakistan article. Wikipedia shouldn't name Taliban insurgents "terrorists", that fails wp:npov and WP:TERRORIST. As for the Ingushetia insurgency, it's part of the Second Chechen War. Battle descriptions of that kind belong on the following page: Guerrilla phase of the Second Chechen War (2008). Grey Fox (talk) 00:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just looked at the War in NWFP article, but I don't see a listing of drone attacks over there. Is this right page you referred to? If not, maybe it's best to just create one. A list, sort of like this or the ETA page. Lihaas (talk) 20:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Euskadi Ta Askatasuna or ETA (Basque for "Basque Homeland and Freedom"; pronounced [ˈɛːta]), is a Basque nationalist terrorist organisation."
If we can't listed ETA attacks on the list while ETA is defined as a terrorist organisation, I give up !
Here List of designated terrorist organizations. I suggest that all actions coming from these groups should be listed as terrorist incident.Kormin (talk) 11:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are many examples where a government considers their enemy a "terrorist organisation" but other countries do not. For example, Yugoslavia listed the Kosovo Liberation Army as a terrorist organisation. And in China, Tibetan insurgency was considered terrorism, even though it was supported by the CIA. So no, that's not a good reference as to what is and what isn't terrorism. This list should only list terrorist incidents, and the only way we can define terrorist incidents without damaging neutrality is by using attacks on civilians only. That makes sense, because if you want to include all reports of attacks by groups considered terrorist organisations, this article would become impossibly big. Check out the news section on this page for example [2]. Grey Fox (talk) 13:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let say I agree. But please, remove that US strike from "terrorist incidents". Or this list will because the "List of all military actions which kill people in 2008Kormin (talk) 13:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Grey Fox (talk) 14:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Pakistan, but not all the Ingushetia attacks (i removed one yesterday). Just because it happens in a different conflict doesn't mean it can't be here. Lots of terror incidents aren't in the "war on terror." It is still a suicide bombing, defined as a terror strategy.
We should come up with a clear definition and list it on the top of the talk page. Lihaas (talk) 20:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suicide bombing isn't terrorism by definition, it was also used in world war II by the Japanese. Also do you know what is going on in Ingushetia? The person targeted by the suicide bomber is said to be responsible for the death of Magomed Yevloyev. Grey Fox (talk) 17:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but if you were to move it because it belongs into the another conflict of its own, then Lanka attacks belong to the lankan civil war article. ETA belongs elsewhere. India's insurgency belongs in terrorism in india, etc, etc.
I still don't quite see why it should be removed. I don't how Yevloyev's inclusion marks this out.
As for the Japanese example, 1. it wasn't called so contemperanously, and 2. even if it was we get into a state vs. non-state debate here. Lihaas (talk) 06:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say remove all the insurgency, from other conflicts too, but only those that don't target civilians. Targeting police/army during an armed conflict is legitimate warfare according to the geneva conventions. So yes that also includes the reports of the Lanka attacks, and India's insurgency.
The suicide attacker in the Caucasus may not be called a terrorist just because he 'sacrificed' himself during an attack. There's no difference between Kamikaze pilots and this attack, he piloted a car full of explosives into the highest ranking general of Ingushetia. Also the rebels do have a state. They used to have a government and armed forces that was recocnized by the entire world, and now their government is in exile. Grey Fox (talk) 07:02, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And just to complicate the issue a little more-- Do we include incidents that seem to only be targeting infrastucture (pipelines, power grid, etc.) when no human beings are in the area? --RDavi404 (talk) 16:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grey fox, but this then comes to defining terrorism. quite a can of worms. I can certainly see where you are going, and to some great degree I do agree, except for the "worms" that are now opened up. See you say only those that target civilians, but how do we know collateral damage from targeted civilians. it seems Ingushetia was targeted at X but Y was damaged. Nonetheless are bodyguards civilians private employees (as per blackwater usa's) or were they military-appointed bodyguards? These are just basic questions...upon further analysis more could come. Furthermore, LTTE targets are more often that not targeted at the government services (of which civil service, ie- non-military are included) yet civilians are casualties.
Ravi, I would say yes to you question as sabotage is generally aimed at destroying the government capabilities. but then the defining question comes up. Lihaas (talk) 21:39, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Musa Medov was the head of all military police Ingushetia, accused of grave and widespread human rights abuse by human rights groups. These brigades target rebel leaders as well. Bodyguards don't really change a thing. If Al-Qaeda leaders are surrounded by bodyguards is the American army not allowed to kill them legally? Of course they may, the issue of blackwater militia being labeled civilians is probably just a corrupt game based on flaws in the Iraqi/American constitution, just like when they weren't able to prosecute blackwater personel. Grey Fox (talk) 11:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I mixed concerning the difinition of an act of terrorism only when civilians die. What about a islamic bombing in a military base in Germany, or in Denmark ? If only military personal die, then, it cannot be an act of terrorism ? It's nonsens. Kormin (talk) 23:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't quite understand your comment, in response to what I said (i believe). so are you now saying that military personnel can be killed in terror? what part is nonsense? Lihaas (talk) 02:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I said imagine that a bombing occure in Netherland, in a military base, killing 11 soldiers. Won't you call that an terrorist attack because no civilians die ? Kormin (talk) 10:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah well, then, yes we agree on this point. Also in regard to removing the other stuff, there has been no discussion, and thus no consensus, as to where to move it to. Lihaas (talk) 06:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the streets I would probably call it terrorism yes, but on an encyclopedia I'd still advocate neutrality and not call it so (I'm also from the Netherlands). (A difference however is that there's no armed conflict ongoing in the Netherlands, so an attack on our military would come out of the blue). During the reign of Franco in Spain Spanish Maquis continued to raid military bases. Under Franco this was called terrorism, but nowadays in Spain the Maquis are called freedom fighters and they have statues. This is an example of why terms such as terrorist and freedom fighters are merely relative wordings. Grey Fox (talk) 11:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so are we going to limit ourselves to proscribed groups or to terrorism, per definition? Both are fair game? Lihaas (talk) 11:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

25 October Kabul incident

[edit]

Can we considere that as a terrorist incident ? It appears that it was just an act of madness. A Taliban spokeman denied any link with this incidents. Kormin (talk) 23:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to tell from the source if the attacker simply went "postal" or had some sort of political motivation. I think we should follow up on the investigation since authorities arrested 13 people in connection before we decide to remove. --RDavi404 (talk) 17:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Criminal Activity not direct terrorism

[edit]

26 October Forest Incident, India September 15 Columbia

[edit]

I do not believe that criminal activity, that is not intended to be a terrorist act but a "wanton" escape of criminals from justice should not go into non-state terrorism but should have articles created on them with a criminality incident. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jersay (talk • contribs)

While the details of colombia elude me, i can see the indian incident (there is nothing listed for oct 26), which could qualify as a mere "forest incident" was an attack by naxals that was terms earlier in the year (or last year, perhaps) as the new threat facing the country. It for this that it bears credence. Furthermore, as to the above conversation, military may not qualify, but a civil police force was fair game. Lihaas (talk) 09:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

November 29th Air Raid & November 1 Sea Battle Sri Lanka

[edit]

With the Air raid and Sea battle on the 29th and November 1st respectively I find that is not terrorist attacks as the sea battle apparently wasn't a suicide ship attack like the one on the 22 of October and that the October 29th issue was an air raid and not a suicide attack, bomb, and therefore the two incidents should be in the Sri Lanka war in list of ongoing wars but not terrorist attacks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jersay (talk • contribs) 15:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you on the sea attack, i even left such a note in the history. that can go. BUt I don't quite agree on the air raid. You seem to equate only a suicide attack with a terror raid. Of course in the LTTE it will be different from the usual dynamics because they are the only known extralegal group to have an air force, if you must. the sea raid, while technically the LTTE are a proscribed group, could still qualify as a military battle. We said above military can be off this list. The air raid had civilian targets. (at least the second on did) Lihaas (talk) 11:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Encana Attacks - British Columbia

[edit]

Now I was the first to report the first attack on gas pipe lines in Dawson Creek, British Columbia Canada but I don't know if it still should be considered terrorism or a civil dispute against a laid off worker or/and other people. I think it should remain now but if it is criminal mischief and not an ecological terrorist or group that is targetting these pipelines I say they should be removed as in the last 10 years over 200 pipeline attacks have occured in Canada and these are the first three to be recorded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jersay (talk • contribs) 15:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. let's wait for the investigation. With three attacks is quite plausible to be more than criminal mischief. Lihaas (talk) 11:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this list states its a terrorist attack, but the article it cites says its not207.161.32.49 (talk) 00:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Too much info in October and November entries

[edit]

Way too many of the entries in October and November contain a lot of extraneous information. I think we should limit the information to such details as date, time, location, methods of attack, perpetrators (whether suspected, confirmed or claiming responsibility), etc. I propose that we parse these entries down so that they read as summaries rather than as news articles. If any reader needs more details, he or she can follow the citation to the original source of the material or click on an embedded link to an appropriate wiki article for further information. It also appears that often several different incidents are crammed into one entry in several instances. I propose that we separate these multi-incident entries into separate ones. --RDavi404 (talk) 06:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flag issue:

[edit]

The entry for 14 November 2008 in Pristina displays the Serbian flag. I didn't change it as I am not sure whether there is an agreed upon protocol for Wikipedia users to follow. - So should it be changed to the Kosovo flag, or is the agreed standard to maintain the Serbian flag? --Lexxus2010 (talk) 10:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added the Kosovo flag so both are showing now. --RDavi404 (talk) 15:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

more: add it

[edit]
Done -RDavi404 (talk) 17:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done -RDavi404 (talk) 20:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done -RDavi404 (talk) 20:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and on the same day as the Mumbai attacks there were also attacks in: Afghanistan, Yemen, and Somalia

It's not really easy to find and add those attacks with the information provided.--RDavi404 (talk) 17:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you.
ruled as an accident-RDavi404 (talk) 15:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2008/11/20081127153937134775.html >> Deaths in Somalia market blast
addedRDavi404 (talk) 15:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
police say no terror involved, it was an accident -RDavi404 (talk) 15:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
addedRDavi404 (talk) 15:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
doneRDavi404 (talk) 15:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to the trouble of posting the links here, then it would be more useful to actually add the events to the article. The discussion page really isn't meant for this sort of thing. I understand that you're only trying to help, but this page's purpose is to sort out disputes and disagreements. Also, please sign your posts by typing four of ~'s.-RDavi404 (talk) 14:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed/long/out of date

[edit]

The disputed tag has been on for more than year, the long doesnt make sense because this page IS a list not an article. if the list is long (as per all years) the editors cant do much. Fianlly i dont know how out of date makes sense b/c thsi is the 2008 list. you want the 2010 list then there is a respective page for that. thus ive removed the 3.

The list is a dubious today as it was 2 years ago. --72.144.221.208 (talk) 12:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of terrorist incidents, 2008. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:32, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 27 external links on List of terrorist incidents, 2008. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:56, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 30 external links on List of terrorist incidents, 2008. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:11, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of terrorist incidents, 2008. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:51, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Global terrorism database

[edit]

https://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/search/Results.aspx?start_month=0&end_month=12&start_year=2008&end_year=2008&start_day=0&end_day=31

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on List of terrorist incidents in 2008. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:42, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 35 external links on List of terrorist incidents in 2008. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:21, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of terrorist incidents in 2008. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:50, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on List of terrorist incidents in 2008. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:43, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: terrorist incidents list criteria

[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of terrorist incidents#RfC: List criteria. – Levivich 17:53, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_2008&oldid=1252604965"