Talk:Domestic terrorism in the United States/Archive 1

Archive 1

Possible areas

• Oklahoma City,
• the Klan,
• abolitionists,

I thought to include both the Sacking of Lawrence and the Pottawatomie Massacre, but it looks to me like they were nearer to open guerilla warfare than terrorism.

• tar-and-feathering loyalists during the Revolution.
• massacres of Native Americans
• Native American raiding parties
• 1890-1900 anarchists
• left-wing 1960's
• Puerto Rican separatists
• radical environmentalists
• 80's right-wing militants
• animal rights
• anti-globalization anarchists

Possible topics

• leaderless resistance
• counterterrorism
• media coverage
• morality in historiography

I think we need to agree on a definition of terrorism and verify that any act fits that definition. Otherwise, we should be careful to say who says it's terrorism. I imagine we'd all like to avoid making another 'some say/it has been alleged' innuendo page. If any facts are in dispute we'll want to present a blanced account. I think this could be a very good page. Tom Harrison ^{User_talk:Tom harrison (talk)} 17:38, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree that a definition is needed. For more recent times, I think it is safe to operate under the rules laid out by the Department of Justice or, where applicable, in statutory law. I think that's fairly reasonable, no matter how distasteful I find the source. (Patriot Act. Ergh.)

Quoting the FBI, it's “the unlawful use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual based and operating entirely within the United States or its territories without foreign direction committed against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.”

This is an invaluable primary source for the past twenty years. There is also a fair bit of valuable material from the Close Up Foundation, which is pretty reliably non-partisan. (A lot of it is at a middle-school level, as well, which can be helpful in an encyclopedia article.)

Historically, that's a bit harder. Perhaps looking through journal articles would be of value? If we can find a basic academic consensus on what events in American history are considered acts of domestic terrorism, we'd be one step closer.

Here are a few events that I would consider members of this category:

The assassinations of Abraham Lincoln and William McKinley. (Overt political motivations are known for these acts. Kennedy? Not so much.)

Unabomber is a given.

Racial violence outside the Klan should be examined. All sorts of resources here. And, of course, the SPLC Intelligence Project.

The Beltway snipers. There were political motives behind the shootings.

Various actions of the Puerto Rican nationalist movement. (JFK bombing, et cetera).

The midwestern pipe-bomb scare of a few years ago. (Right-wing anti-government types.)

I guess we should start with "now" and move backwards, maybe. Tom Lillis 00:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

immigration and the development of "know how" attitudes

Much prevalent and popular American literature which describes North American population encounters with explorers and colonists, as well as with modern immigrants, uses the word "Indians" to describe the native peoples and the word "how" as typical of speech interface. From this comes the interpersonal attitude, especially pronounced among some families, that they learn a lot from foreign visitors and immigrants -- but they still aren't those.

As example, the surname 'Keller' as a speech-sound is a short mental hop to the word 'killer'; and indeed specific indivi-duals and populations actively identify with 'Kellers' as a family who "knows how" to sing the passages in the 'Books of Kells' yet are not those composers/authors neither in ancestry nor culture [i.e., only in latitude]. The mental leap from 'Keller' to 'killer' is so short that active verbal terrorism often results from family adherents, exemplified by call-demand strategies which move directly from 'ask/request' mode of oral delivery to 'demand' type terrorism, and are quite frightening when first encountered [in modern times, usually through the telephone, directly into the inner ear]. Beadtot 01:38, 22 December 2005 (UTC) December 21, 2005 beadtot

Added Earth Liberation Front (ELF)

Info from the main ELF page

Added Army of God

with information from the main page.

Jewish Defense League

They should really be on here, they comitted several embassy bombings and possibly asassinations domestically and numerous murders abroad.69.9.30.191 06:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

By every definition the JDL was a terrorist organization. I have put both attacks and foiled plots by them in the List of terrorist incidents and the Terrorism in the United States list. But were they a domestic one? Their main cause when they were doing attacks within the U.S. was the treatment of Jews in the Soviet Union. I would categorize them as what we would call today “homegrown terrorists”. To me homegrown terrorism is a plot/action by an individual or a group within the U.S.(or whatever country) done for international reasons. The Fort Dix plot done for Jahid is an example . Domestic terrorism is done to change a social or political situation within the United States or policy of the United States Government. All of the actions and groups in the article with the exception of Alpha 66 and possible exception of the anthrax attacks fit that definition. There are no clear definitions or distinctions between the two types of terrorism in media reporting and Wikipedia does not have separate articles for homegrown terrorism Edkollin 07:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

What about the James-Younger Gang?

With the movie about the assassination of Jesse James coming out this hybrid of traditional criminal gang and terrorists deserves consideration. This gang had many Confederate ex solders and supporters and some of the targets were businesses associated with Union supporters and the Republican Party. Jesse James made populist statements and according to the Wikipedia article on the gang member Archie Clement on election day 1866 led his men into Lexington, Kentucky where they drove Republican voters away from the polls, and secured a Republican defeat Edkollin 20:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is a link to an author who wrote a book on Jesse James and claims he was the forerunner to todays terrorist [1] Edkollin 06:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

School shootings?

Aren't school shootings like Virgina tech or Columbine highschool incidents considered domestic terrorism? 67.5.157.107 (talk) 00:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe there has to be a political agenda on the part of the perpetrators. Otherwise, it's just mass murder.Maziotis (talk) 11:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Posse Comitatus

I suggest the addition of 'Posse Comitatus to the list of organizations. See: Posse Comitatus (organization). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.76.95 (talk) 15:32, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

In all reality, the NYC Draft Riots should not be on a list with the Ku Klux Klan and Animal Liberation groups. By that logic you should include Shay's rebellion, or the Whiskey Rebellion.69.112.123.6 (talk) 06:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Removal of the draft riots.

Either put the Whiskey Rebellion and Shay's Rebellion on the list or the Draft Riots weren't terrorism. The Rodney King riots can even be argued to be terrorism by the logic for the draft riots. Basically rebellion and terrorism are very closely linked conceptually, and unless it is carefully delineated, people like whoever put the draft riots on there are merely categorizing any form of reactionary violence as terrorism (rather than revolution, rebellion, or insurrection, or what have you.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.210.77 (talk) 13:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Draft Riots Should be Removed or Many Other Events Added

First of all, Pete Hamill is a journalist that writes for NY's Daily News. His statement implies that all inter-gang violence is Domestic Terrorism, and if that were the case and all events of that type included, this article would completely miss the point. Besides, he's not a political scientist or a scholar.

The definition provided by Jenkins would classify Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion in particular as acts of Domestic terrorism. I also believe the Draft Riots should be denied inclusion in this article because every other group and event is highly ideologically rooted and their events of terror carefully planned and executed by small numbers of devoted followers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.112.123.6 (talk) 17:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Suggested additions

1. Tulsa race riot?
2. Mountain Meadows massacre?  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 02:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
3. Sons of Liberty?  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 02:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
4. Matthew Shepard? --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 21:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
5. October 2018 United States mail bombing attempts
6. Pittsburgh synagogue shooting - if these two don't fit the category, what does?

Why was the Boston Tea Party Added?

I'd like to at least hear why before suggesting its removal. It's considered in the text to be "direct action," so how is it a "terrorist" act? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.32.250 (talk) 04:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Should attacks on abortion clinics/murder of clinic staff qualify?

This may be borderline in that there are only loose connections between organizations, and the perpetrators of the violence. However, if the Oklahoma City Bombing qualifies, we may not need to have large conspiracy. Comments?Mattnad (talk) 19:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Possible topic

The targeting of African-Americans for murder, because they are black, by Mexican gangs. This fits the definition of terrorism just as much as an elderly racist shooting a guard outside of the Holocaust Museum.

Choice of "terrorist" groups

The list of groups here are certainly arbitrary and none appear involved in any of the major attacks listed below them. In one of the references given in the article [2] the various groups are scored according to perceived threat level:

Drug / Crime Gangs

Nation of Islam

Moslem Extremists

Citizen-Militias

Aryan Nations (Skinheads)

Ku Klux Klan

Other Religious Extremists

Jewish Extremists

Christian Extremists

This is followed with the comment:

"By far, the group which was considered to be most dangerous and threatening to civilian and military authority by the respondents to the survey, were the gangs that operate in the illicit drug trade or are involved in other criminal endeavors. Drug/crime gangs received a perceived threat index value of 4.24 (+ 0.98), which was significantly greater than the 3.05 (+1.34) index value attained by the second most threatening group, the Nation of Islam. An anomaly, at least when initially perusing the results, was the ranking of Moslem extremists (index value of 2.57 (+1.43)) as a more significant and immediate threat than that posed by either the Aryan Nations or Ku Klux Klan (index values of 2.34 (+1.09) and 2.04 (+1.03), respectively). Additionally, there was an obvious segregation of both Nation of Islam and Moslem extremists from the other "religiously-motivated" groups such as Jewish[1.82] and Christian extremists[1.78], as well as all other religious extremists[1.97] (Table 4)."

Certainly, none of this, assuming it is true, can be gathered from this article. In fact, just the reverse!! Stellarkid (talk) 02:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

... Moslem? 85.230.232.157 (talk) 15:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

FALN

What about the FALN - Someone asleep at the wheel here? Remember the bombings of police stations in NYC? Hotel? Etc. Over 100 bombings. Expressly directed at the state. Guinness4life (talk) 16:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC) Have to agree, FALN belongs in the topic. Roger Midnight (talk) 13:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

You've got a good eye here, though it might be contentious. The reason is, that while the USG might consider FALN to be a terrorist organization (I don't know if they're officially listed), others will likely argue that they're more of a guerrilla resistance army resisting foreign occupation than domestic terrorists per se (Puerto Rico being only kind of domestic, and the FALN being more organized / successful than other groups). I could be convinced to vote for the addition, but expect it to be opposed on those grounds. DigitalHoodoo (talk) 12:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Domestic terrorism in the United States

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Domestic terrorism in the United States's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "cnn1":

• From Earth Liberation Front: FBI, ATF address domestic terrorism, CNN, May 19, 2005.
• From Terry Nichols: "Jury deadlocks, sparing Nichols from death penalty". CNN. June 11, 2004. Retrieved February 26, 2009.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 05:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Was fixed here. Jordan Brown (talk) 03:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Discussion on "Domestic Terrorism" Merge.

I feel that there should be a "Domestic Terrorism" page broken up by countries and their Terrorist organisations. Yes, Domestic Terrorism and Terrorism can happen anywhere and anytime. There should be a neutral page for all countries not just certain countries. Terrorism may happen more frequently in some countries than others, still there should be a neutral Wikipedia page for Domestic Terrorism and Terrorism. Then if certain attacks are signicant, then they should be linked in with that particular country. Adamdaley (talk) 12:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Dr. Tiller assassination removed

Was there consensus on removing this section?

In keeping with similar violence directed toward abortion clinics, patients, and staff, Scott P. Roeder, 51, allegedly shot and killed a prominent abortion doctor, Dr. George Tiller, on May 31, 2009 while he was ushering Sunday service at his church in Wichita, Kansas. Mr. Roeder was a member of an anti-government group in the 1990s and a known abortion opponent with a criminal history. On June 9, 2009, Dr. Tiller's family stated the clinic would be closed permanently, resulting in further restriction to abortion access for women. Dr. Tiller was one of only three doctors in the U.S. providing elective late-term abortion services.

If the Virginia Tech shooting, which was not politically motivated, belongs here, certainly Dr. Tiller's assassination and those of other doctors merit a mention. Roscelese (talk) 04:50, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

The Vtech shooting probably shouldn't be here. - Schrandit (talk) 09:40, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Tiller and any abortion violence should be mentioned. There aren't many Terrorism Experts that don't regard abortion violence as terrorism. It is the targeting of symbolic targets for the purpose of pushing an ideology. If the VT shooting was based on the killers attempt to promote an ideology, it should be included. I do believe it resides in a somewhat gray area. Also suggest locking the abortion entry, as anyone removing it is clearly doing so because they sympathize with the movement. The Domestic Terrorism page should not be a place for the left or right to promote its agenda. It should align with accepted definitions and categorizations of terrorist acts among experts. Abortion Violence most definitely qualifies as terrorism. There isn't even a debate on that. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 20:40, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

PETA

Why is PETA not on the list of domestic terrorism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.62.204.145 (talk) 20:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Giffords shooting doesn't merit inclusion.

There is nothing to suggest it was an attempt to influence public policy, any more than Ronald Reagan's shooting. You can't label every lunatic as a terrorist.

The Boston Marathon bombing has not been confirmed as a domestic terror attack

It needs to be removed until it is confirmed, and it may be weeks before we really know, so don't add it. 161.253.11.22 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:24, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

One of the perps is a U.S. citizen. A U.S. citizen committing a terrorist act on U.S. soil makes it domestic. Federales (talk) 05:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

One of the suspects is a US citizen. Innocent until proven guilty. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Maybe the IP is referring to the terrorism part rather than the domestic part. We don't have official info on the bombers' motives, they haven't been convicted, etc. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:53, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

We don't need to know the motive to understand that this was an act of terrorism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Federales (talk • contribs) 19:43, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

We need a conviction, not just an accusation, if we're naming names, per WP:BLPCRIME. And yeah, motive plays a huge part in whether something is terrorism or plain murder. Until the courts show someone intended to coerce or disrupt the government or population (not just kill people), it has no place here. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:00, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

News sources see it differently:

CNN: Charges filed in Boston terror attack [3]

MSNBC: Boston terror attack fuels calls for more security cams [4]

Fox News: Monday April 22, 2013 Happening Now - One Week Since Boston Terror Attack [5]

Washington Post: Boston terror attack: Why the terrorists won’t win [6]

New York Times: A Week of Terror in Boston [7]

Atlanta Journal-Constitution: In Boston, a terror attack and a terrible reminder [8]

Forbes: There's Nothing 'Homegrown' About The Boston Terror Attacks [9]

You can conjure whatever imaginary definition makes you happy, but the SOURCES say this was an act of terrorism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Federales (talk • contribs) 20:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Do any of them say the suspect was convicted? No. Does WP:BLPCRIME begin with "a person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law." Yes. Does describing someone's alleged actions under the header "Domestic terrorism attacks" presume their guilt? Yes. If you insist on using your single purpose account to add this, I'll bring it up at the BLP noticeboard. Who knows? Maybe they'll agree with you. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

We don't need to even know who the suspects are to say that the bombings were an act of terror. But in any case you are mis-applying the policy, which says "For people who are relatively unknown..." The Tsarnaev brothers are not "relatively unknown". They are now public figures. Stop trying to use BLPCRIME to remove all mention of the bombings. And maybe you should also re-read WP:SPI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Federales (talk • contribs) 21:31, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I quoted the first sentence. What point is there in arguing the second one? We need to have a motive. "Act of terror" is a buzzword. "Domestic terrorism" is a legal definition, given in this article. The two aren't interchangeable. The only source you give that even hints at a motive (beyond reporter speculation) is the CNN one, where Tsarnaev reportedly says his brother "wanted to defend Islam from attack". InedibleHulk (talk) 21:35, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

You are trying to impose an imaginary restriction. The legal definition is informative, but does not create a gateway to inclusion in the article. In any event, your reasoning is faulty, as the Boston events clearly meet the requirements of the definition by any reasonable standard. Coercion is not the only possible motivation, intimidation is also mentioned. Federales (talk) 21:43, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Which source says they intended to intimidate someone? And are they guessing? InedibleHulk (talk) 21:45, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Are you accusing me of being a sockpuppet, or are you explaining your single purpose account? If you're accusing me, you're barking up the wrong tree. I've had this sole account for seven years. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:40, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

One more time: the legal definition does not restrict the content of this article. If the sources say it was terrorism, that's all we need. Federales (talk) 22:07, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The sources need to be basing their view in fact, not opinion. And "terror" does not equal "terrorism". InedibleHulk (talk) 22:24, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, typo. I meant WP:SPA. My account is not a single purpose account, according to Wikipedia's definition. Nor would it matter, even if I did meet the definition. Federales (talk) 22:10, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Your editing sure seems to be limited to one very narrow area or set of articles (one, in this case). But yeah, you might be new. Or you might have an alternate for a good reason. I don't think you're new, since newbs generally don't know about that policy. I'll assume good faith and that you're doing it for privacy reasons. Doesn't matter to the argument, but maybe to your editing practices. Remember, using it for advocacy is frowned upon, which this could be seen as. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:22, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The trial's over, and the suspect is no longer a suspect, but a convicted terrorist, sentenced to die. So no objection anymore, if someone wants to add it. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:38, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Other non-terrorist acts

We have a definition of terrorism in the article, but we have events which either don't meet the criteria and/or do not involve terrorism charges or official declarations as terrorism. In some cases, official sources have explicitly said the act was not terrorism. So I've been removing them. If someone wants to revert, please explain why here instead of just reverting. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I do think you've been hasty... For example, anti-abortion violence is generally recognized as terrorism (although I suppose we could include a summary of the main article, including Britton, Gunn, etc. and expanding on ERR and the Army of God a bit, rather than just Tiller and the rest scattered over the article). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:38, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't hasty. I'd noticed that several bloggers in Tiller's article think it counts as terrorism. And it's fine to mention they've called it that, in his article. But Roeder was formally charged and convicted of first degree murder and aggravated assault, not terrorism. While the courts are not infallible, they are established authorities on criminal matters. Wikipedia should give their opinion more weight than those of bloggers and advocates. Remember, some bloggers also call Tiller a mass murderer, despite abortion being legal. Roeder himself claimed his motive was to "save unborn children", not to coerce the public or government, as terrorists do. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:24, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

If only the attackers being charged/convicted with terrorism defines an act as terrorism, we also wouldn't be able to call the September 11 attacks terrorism. But a court conviction is not the only thing we can use; we also have reliable sources. This isn't about what "bloggers" say, but rather about the scholarly consensus that anti-abortion violence is a form of terrorism. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:16, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

No, an official inquiry can determine that for dead (or absent) suspects. And for any crime, if the police close a case when their lone suspect dies before trial, s/he becomes officially guilty. Per WP:NEWSORG, we can use the opinions, but we should present them as such, not facts, and clearly attribute them to the expert/writer/whoever. In the case of a list like this, there's no real way to do that. Much more black and white than in a standalone article, or in an anti-abortion violence incident list. Does that exist here? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:20, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you that the day-of reports of news organs aren't good sources - what I'm talking about is published scholarly opinion. As I said in my comment earlier, a good way of handling this would be to have in this article a section on anti-abortion terrorism that summarized the main article - rather than what we had before, which had information on one topic scattered all over the article, and which also omitted notable incidents. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:26, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Why not just list what you want to list here in the already existing list at Anti-abortion violence? That article already has several sources opining it is a form of terrorism, and just seems the most relevant place, without the restrictive legal definition present here. But your idea could work, too. Can't be sure till I see what you have in mind. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:05, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

The material I want to include here already is at anti-abortion violence, but it is common on WP for an article on a broader subject, like this one, to include a summary of and link to a more specific article, like anti-abortion violence, when the subject of the more specific article is completely or in large part a subset of the subject of the broader article. (Where are you getting the idea that this article has a more restrictive definition? The source in the lede includes anti-abortion terrorism and names Tiller's murder specifically.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:16, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I mean the definition here, at "Domestic terrorism in the United States", is restrictive. In Tiller's case, his killer claimed his motive was to save unborn children. The prosecution didn't claim he was acting to coerce, intimidate or disrupt. So it doesn't meet the restrictive criteria. How about a section here called "Anti-abortion violence" (or "terrorism"), containing only a link to the main article? That way, readers browsing this broader topic would see it just as well, and could easily click through to it, while we avoid the legal definition problem?InedibleHulk (talk) 02:29, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

No, I understood your comment about the definition here; what I meant was that there's not necessarily a reason to limit it here when it is not so limited elsewhere. We would naturally include the definitions we already include because the US legal definition is pertinent information, but it doesn't necessarily have to restrict the content we add. Does that make sense?

Sorry, misread your comment about the source in the lead to mean the lead. I get it now. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

If we just linked anti-abortion violence under a header, we'd have a {{empty section}}, which is stylistically undesirable. But it's easy to find reliable sources identifying specific incidents as terrorism as well as the phenomenon in general. Would you be interested in collaborating on a draft of such a paragraph? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

No, a totally empty section wouldn't look good. But I still don't think we should list incidencts outside the scope of the legal definition. For any topic, there are several levels of authority. For defining a US crime, Title 18 of the United States Code is literally law. How about a few sentences summing up anti-abortion violence, and explaining how and why some view it as terrorism, followed by a "For a list of incidents, see Anti-abortion violence#United States"? To me, it seems a fair compromise. Not sure how to collaborate on a single paragraph, but if you'd like to write one up, I guess I could give my two cents on it. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:09, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

At this point, it seems more productive to write rather than to discuss in the abstract, so I'll see what I can come up with later. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:05, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Anti-abortion violence section

Aha, I remembered I was going to do this. How about this as a section? Although it's all information from the main article, since I'm sure we can all agree that these are facts, we can source and wikilink it once we've agreed on some wording, to save time now.

Anti-abortion violence, recognized as a form of terrorism, is often committed in the United States against individuals and organizations that provide abortion. Incidents have included crimes against people, such as murder, assault, kidnapping, and stalking; crimes affecting both people and property, such as arson or bombing; and property crimes such as vandalism. Perpetrators may defend their actions as necessary to protect fetuses, and are often motivated by Christianity, leading to anti-abortion violence's identification as Christian terrorism; it is also associated with opposition to women's rights.

Notable incidents of anti-abortion violence include the murders of a number of doctors and clinic staff in the 1990s. In 1993, Michael Griffin shot Dr. David Gunn to death during a protest. In 1994, Paul Jennings Hill shot Dr. John Britton and clinic escort James Barrett to death, also wounding Barrett's wife June; John Salvi shot and killed two receptionists, Shannon Lowney and Lee Ann Nichols. Eric Robert Rudolph bombed the 1996 Olympic Games in Atlanta in protest of abortion, killing one person and wounding 111, and bombed several abortion clinics in 1997 and 1998, killing a security guard and critically injuring a nurse. In 1998, James Kopp shot a number of abortion providers, killing one, Dr. Barnett Slepian. Scott Roeder shot and killed Dr. George Tiller in 2009 as Tiller served as an usher at church; he had previously been a target in 1993, when he was shot by Shelley Shannon. The Army of God, an underground terrorist organization, has been responsible for a substantial amount of anti-abortion violence, including a number of the above murders.

I'd like it to be longer and more detailed, but maybe this is a start? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh yeah, we could also mention the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act; and maybe mention some general numerical stats or trends. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:53, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Looks pretty good (I have to admit I TLDR'd the second paragraph). One minor suggestion; in the opening sentence would it be accurate to say "that provide abortions or abortion counseling"? Without reviewing the entire main article, I think there have been cases where counseling centers have been at least vandalized, not just clinics. Fat&Happy (talk) 18:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

All or most of this is taken, some verbatim, from the main article. I think we could definitely include it (no reason to omit it) but we should source it in the main article first. Are you thinking of instances where Planned Parenthood centers that provide birth control have been attacked? That's been a thing, there's a popular myth that PP is an abortionplex omg the horror. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:01, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, it was basically just a "back of my memory" thing, but Planned Parenthood definitely flitted through my head as I was thinking about it. Not sure if there are others, but wouldn't put any heavy money that there aren't. Fat&Happy (talk) 19:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Looks good, overall. Though I don't like "recognized" as terrorism. Suggests there is an absolute definition, and only some people can see it. "Considered", "defined as" or something similar would be less ambiguous. And yeah, that's a long paragraph. It would be better in a list, I think. No opinion on the Planned Parenthood thing. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:10, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Here's a revised version.

Anti-abortion violence, considered a form of terrorism, is often committed in the United States against individuals and organizations that provide abortions or abortion counseling. Incidents have included crimes against people, such as murder, assault, kidnapping, and stalking; crimes affecting both people and property, such as arson or bombing; and property crimes such as vandalism. Perpetrators may defend their actions as necessary to protect fetuses, and are often motivated by their Christian beliefs, leading to anti-abortion violence's identification as Christian terrorism; it is also associated with opposition to women's rights.

Notable incidents of anti-abortion violence include the murders of a number of doctors and clinic staff in the 1990s.

• In 1993, Michael Griffin shot Dr. David Gunn to death during a protest.
• In 1994, Paul Jennings Hill shot Dr. John Britton and clinic escort James Barrett to death, also wounding Barrett's wife June; John Salvi shot and killed two receptionists, Shannon Lowney and Lee Ann Nichols.
• Eric Robert Rudolph bombed the 1996 Olympic Games in Atlanta in protest of abortion, killing one person and wounding 111, and bombed several abortion clinics in 1997 and 1998, killing a security guard and critically injuring a nurse.
• In 1998, James Kopp shot a number of abortion providers, killing one, Dr. Barnett Slepian.

As well, Scott Roeder shot and killed Dr. George Tiller in 2009 as Tiller served as an usher at church; he had previously been a target in 1993, when he was shot by Shelley Shannon. The Army of God, an underground terrorist organization, has been responsible for a substantial amount of anti-abortion violence, including a number of the above murders.

Thoughts? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:00, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Good. Definitely a lot more easily read. One minor quibble; not to get into a debate over who is a true Scotsman, but can we change "motivated by Christianity" to "motivated by their interpretation of Christian teachings" or something similar? Fat&Happy (talk) 22:22, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

How's my change above? I think it conveys that not all Christians oppose abortion or believe opposition to abortion necessitates violence, without caveating more than we do in other articles. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:39, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Fine with me. Fat&Happy (talk) 23:05, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Fine by me, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:13, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Political Discourse

Should Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's comments identifying Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and armed vigilantes who came to defend his property as "domestic terrorists" be included in this dialogue? This sounds significant enough to include, though the identification of certain citizens as terrorists that half the country sees as patriots would be very difficult to include. I am prone to include it on factual, not politically motivated grounds. Michaelopolis (talk) 21:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

From everything I've read, it's just angry rhetoric, and nobody involved has actually committed anything resembling terrorism. Sort of like calling a stubborn person a Nazi, or a stingy person a Jew; doesn't mean much. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Ali Muhammad Brown

I undid the inclusion of a serial killer [here]. Aside from the fact that the edit has no wikiarticle or sources, I question whether the event should be considered domestic terrorism. A single person killed three people and supposedly (no evidence) called it vengeance for US actions in the Middle East. Meters (talk) 00:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Please remove libel

The Jewish Defense League is not a terrorist organization. It is a Jewish resistance group. It only attacks anti-Semitic terrorists like neo-Nazis and Muslim extremists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.122.22.54 (talk) 08:20, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

And the anti-Semitic terrorists only attack Jewish defenders. Two peas, same pod. Several attributed sources call it a terrorist group. Do you have something that says they're not, beside yourself? InedibleHulk (talk) 08:29, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Are you seriously comparing Jews to neo-Nazis? That is a common anti-Semitic trope employed by commies and Muslims. Anti-Semites are evil and deserve to be killed. The Jewish Defense League kills them in self-defense because anti-Semites are genocidal and have been oppressing Jews for millennia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.203.134.198 (talk • contribs)

That's why many anti-Semite terrorists kill Jews, too. And why Christians kill Muslims and commies kill capitalists. I'm none of those, so can see both sides. You seem quite swayed already, and I don't care to change that. Talk pages are for improving articles, not rationalizing murder or otherwise discussing general topics. A claim that this group is not a terrorist organization would be fine there, but it must be reliably sourced. It wouldn't cancel out the existing claims, but complement them. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:10, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Add White Aryan Resistance

Though I'm no expert on the subject, I know that the White Aryan Resistance (WAR) is often cited as a violent terrorist organization. It is based in California and holds prejudice towards the following:

1) African Americans 2) Jews 3) Arabs 4) Asians 5) Latin Americans (especially Mexicans) 6) Muslims 7) The US government 8) Whites against their cause

Kieran P. Clark (talk) 14:51, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Date limitations

This article begins with the following sentence:

Domestic terrorism in the United States between 1980 and 2000 consisted of incidents confirmed as or suspected to be terrorist acts.

Why would there be a limit to just terrorist acts between those two dates? Where are the incidents before 1980 and after 2000 to be found. In any event, since the Sikh temple bombing, which is very recent, is included in this article, then the article isn't in fact limited to incidents between 1980 and 2000. Ileanadu (talk) 20:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Aye. Fixed. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:44, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

KKK Terrorism Debate

Though I'm not claiming any personal viewpoint on the matter, I would like to note that legally, the Ku Klux Klan is considered a free speech organization by the United States government.

Kieran P. Clark (talk) 14:53, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean. There's no such thing as a "free speech organization" (Category:Freedom of expression organizations contains activist organizations for freedom of expression). While the US government may say that the KKK has the right to propagate racist views under the First Amendment, they don't have the right to harm people or destroy property. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

This section put forward no evidence to call the "Ku Klux Klan" a terrorist group. Or, note anything about the many different Klan groups. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.252.63.124 (talk) 04:40, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Charleston Church Bombing

It seems to me that the Charleston Church Bombing should be added as the latest example of domestic terrorism in the United States. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3770:D5F0:C00A:5A10:B011:BB08 (talk) 16:27, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Second Battle of Charleston Harbor tops Wikipedia's search results for Charleston Church Bombing. If that's what you meant, no, that was war. If you meant the Charleston church shooting, nope. Only even charged with murder and hate crimes. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:52, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Sovereign Citizens

Should this group have an entry on the page? From the article specifically about them: "According to a 2014 report by the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism, a survey of law-enforcement officials and agencies across the United States concluded that the movement was the single greatest threat to their communities, ranking above Islamic terrorists and jihadists."

It seems they fit the subject pretty well. Because of the seriousness of this topic,I didnt really want to be bold and do it without asking for opinions first. 96.28.39.103 (talk) 22:49, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

That says they're a threat above terrorists. You can't be something you're above. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:53, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Domestic terrorism in the United States. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121007083445/http://www.fbi.gov:80/stats-services/publications/terror to http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/terror

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:10, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Initial definition of domestic terrorism

Can someone either change the link or remove the second sentence of this article? (These attacks are considered domestic because they were carried out by U.S. citizens or U.S. permanent residents.[1]) I can find NOTHING that fits this definition and the link is bad. Sets you on a third party invalid portal that doesn't even reference the definition, but if you click around it will give you a bunch of other link to look up domestic terrorism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kdntz (talk • contribs) 18:07, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Domestic terrorism in the United States. 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20051128053155/http://www.cfrterrorism.org:80/groups/american.html to http://cfrterrorism.org/groups/american.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140910205433/http://www.tkb.org/Group.jsp?groupID=29 to http://www.tkb.org/Group.jsp?groupID=29
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090311144410/http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress04/doran061604.htm to http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress04/doran061604.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100707233327/http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress04/pistole041404.htm to http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress04/pistole041404.htm

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:20, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Dallas shooting

Should we be including the Dallas shooting when the sources clearly say that it was not a terrorist attack? Per WP:SYNTH, my thoughts on the matter is no but since I was reverted I am starting this to get others opinions. --Majora (talk) 17:34, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, we should, as BLM should remain as a Domestic Terrorism group purely by definition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdahlkvist (talk • contribs) 17:25, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Antifa or BAMN?

Why is there no sections for the organisations that are coordinating the riots we keep seeing? Are they not considered terrorist groups? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.161.177.213 (talk) 19:28, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

The Anti-fascism article has no mention of terrorism at all, and while the BAMN article mentions that the FBI identified it as "thought to be involved in terrorist activities", there's nothing there saying that they have been involved with terrorist activities. So it seems unlikely that they'd be added to this article. Do you know of any reliable sources saying that these groups engage in terrorism? --ChiveFungi (talk) 23:26, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

There are numerous problems with the antifa section. I don't know how to remove it or change it. How can "Obama era" be used to refer to a period after his presidency ended? Also, as stated above: there have been no confirmed antifa terrorist attacks. 71.47.129.197 (talk) 01:49, 6 November 2017 (UTC)anonymous

I've just removed Antifa, this article is about "Domestic terrorism in the United States consists of incidents confirmed as terrorist acts." There have been no incidents where Antifa has been confirmed as being involved in a terrorist act. Doug Weller talk 14:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Las Vegas shooting

This definitely does not meet the criteria "incidents confirmed as terrorist acts." Calling it one is a violation of at least WP:NPOV and WP:VERIFY. Doug Weller talk 14:30, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I now see that the definition that has been clearly stated at the beginning of this article says "confirmed" incidents. I apologise for my earlier reversion, as it was clearly in violation of the definition of the article.

However, I will argue that most people that are directed to this article do not expect to see a list of occurrences that only fit the narrow legal definition of what a "terrorist incident" is. I would propose that we ultimately remove the "confirmed" part of the definition and allow for more incidents, such as the Las Vegas one, with more of a borderline definition of "terrorism" to be incorporated into the list as well. The common vernacular on the street would be to describe this and other similar incidents as "terrorist", despite them not fitting the strict legal definition of such an occurrence. Should we not be using common sense WP:UCS to describe the incidents in an article titled "Domestic terrorism in the United States", especially when the following articles have also established incorporating within themselves the Las Vegas shooting, and other similar domestic US events: Outline of terrorism in the United States Lone wolf (terrorism). Would it not make more sense to be consistent with said aritcles? Wiz9999 (talk) 15:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I will note the definitions used on the two articles I mentioned:

From Outline of terrorism in the United States "Although terrorism has taken on several different definitions, it is most commonly defined as the use of violence to achieve political means."

From Lone wolf (terrorism) "a "lone wolf" is an animal or person that generally lives or spends time alone instead of with a group. Observers note the attacks are a relatively rare type of terrorist attack but have been increasing in number, and that it is sometimes difficult to tell whether an actor has received outside help and what appears to be a lone wolf attack may actually have been carefully orchestrated from outside."

Which is why it is better for articles not to get bogged down in legal definitions in order to maintain a WP:NPOV as best as possible. Wiz9999 (talk) 15:22, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

No, we go by what reliable sources say. We have a real problem on Wikipedia with editors trying to label events, organisations or people without reliable sources. User:EvergreenFir and I have brought this up at WP:VPP#Proposal regarding WP:OR and terrorism. Doug Weller talk 15:51, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, we should always go by what reliable sources say, I would never suggest otherwise. I am simply suggesting that we alter the article's definition to be more broad scoped to allow for the inclusion of these events. In this way we will better be able to maintain WP:NPOV. If editors keep trying to add information without reliable sources, that is an entirely separate issue and should not affect our stance at neutrality. Wiz9999 (talk) 16:05, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

But the definition in the article does come from an RS. And, it appears that you wish to change it to your own definition. Objective3000 (talk) 16:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Which RS is this? I assume you are referring to the [10] citation on the definition, within which I can only find a reference to "suspected or confirmed terrorism", which is what I am proposing we change the definition to. I do not wish to change it to my own definition. I am simply asking that we have a discussion on if we should change the current definition, and, if so, what that new definition should be. Whatever the consensus opinion is I will accept. Wiz9999 (talk) 16:30, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Once again, we can't make up a definition. If we have an article on domestic terrorism any incidents, etc have to have reliable sources calling it domestic terrorism. Doug Weller talk 16:37, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Then what definition would you propose? Objective3000 has kindly located the wording of the Patriot Act below. Wiz9999 (talk) 17:48, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

The U.S Patriot Act (misnomer as that may be). Public Law 107-57 section 802. This is on page 376 of: [11]. Objective3000 (talk) 17:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Interesting and this fails that definition (‘(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; ‘‘(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or ‘‘(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and ‘‘(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.’’- note the 'and') but the problem with it is that we shouldn't be interpreting the application of an act ourself, we always rely on our sources for that. Doug Weller talk 17:36, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it clearly fails the US federal definition of terrorism, but it does seemingly correspond with the Nevada state's definition on terrorism, it's still in dispute really. See: [12] Wiz9999 (talk) 17:45, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't know why you asked me which definition I prefer, I'm fine with the Patriot Act's defintion but we still need reliable sources saying something is terrorist, we don't interpret the primary source and use it to apply to something. And if it's in dispute, it doesn't belong here. As you say, no official source has identified this as a terrorist act. I'd be surprised if they did unless some new evidence is found. Doug Weller talk 18:06, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. Yep, officially I have not seen it identified as a terrorist act. However, I have seen it be referred to as a "possible" terrorist act according to this article: [13]. Under the current definition on the article the incident can definitely be excluded, as it is in dispute, and definitely has not been "confirmed", as the article states. Wiz9999 (talk) 19:13, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree that this article does not currently meet the standard definition of terrorism. Terrorism requires a political aim, and we do not have any RS verified political aim at the moment. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

References

Possible Early 20th Century additions to Notable Acts of Domestic Terrorism

Italian Hall disaster An anti-labor action that is currently the largest unsolved mass murder in US history. Bath School disaster While other circumstances; poor health, financial problems, and possible life long mental health issues, may have been the actual causes for Andrew Kehoe's behavior. The attack he carried was intended to deliver an anti-tax message to the school board and community at large. RCMall (talk) 06:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I know we are walking on thin ice, but I don't understand how we could define the actions behind the bath school disaster to be a part of a political act of terror. The anti-tax message is the reason for the personal act of revenge of this man. There isn't at any point an attempt to give an altruistic justification for this action, like the other cases of "terrorism". This is what I mean when I say that this is an act of personal revenge and not an action intended to push a particular political doctrine.

As for the Italian Hall disaster, I understand that there are political reasons involved in the incident. But these were not the cause of the disaster, as being used as motivation for an act of terror, where the use of violence is intended to push a political agenda. The whole incident turn out to be an accident.

I find this somewhat subjective. If you have a different view, please share. I don’t claim to have the best definition of terrorism, by any means.Maziotis (talk) 13:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I actually joined as a result of not finding the Bath School disaster not listed here, yet the Unabomber and Oklahoma City bombing are listed. I find Kehoe's acts justly defined as terrorist as either of the two mentioned. A line from the Bath School disaster Wikipedia article (see citation) states this more eloquently than any rambling manifesto, "Investigators found a wooden sign wired to the farm's fence with Kehoe's last message stenciled on it: "Criminals are made, not born"." If that isn't an anti-establishmentarian statement, then I don't know what is. The act itself, and it's motivation meet the criteria for listing in this section. Please keep in mind the title of this article, it is NOT a political litmus test. KBassford (talk) 16 October, 2019 (UTC)

Antifa redux

It was readded, one editor removed a bad source and I've removed the rest, because there's no fit to this article: "Domestic terrorism in the United States consists of incidents confirmed as terrorist acts." No acts by anyone in the movement have been designated as terrorist. No official statements by the Federal government have called their activities terrorism and even if they did, we'd need specific ones which I'm sure the government would list in any official statement. Doug Weller talk 19:10, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Removed some more. Politico is usually considered an acceptable source. But, the article is based on interviews with anonymous law enforcement and confidential docs. IMO, not enough for a contentious WP:LABEL like terrorist organization. Certainly not in WikiVoice. Interesting article from the Right: [14]. O3000 (talk) 20:21, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Added it back, simply because the justification used (the NR source) isn't convincing to me. Won't edit it again though. Arkon (talk) 20:24, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

That wasn't the justification. That was just an interesting article. My justification for removal is above. And there's no way this should be in WikiVoice. Even the other sites that picked it up say according to Politico. O3000 (talk) 20:27, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

If the LABEL part is an issue, I got you, I've seen it too much myself to find any real consensus on the issue. Removing it completely doesn't seem like the right tract for getting that part fixed however. Arkon (talk) 20:30, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I still don’t see how the definition is met by antifa. What incident was labelled terrorist? We can’t add them here without that. Doug Weller talk 20:41, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Before taking this to a noticeboard or starting an RfC to obtain more eyes, I thought I’d give it one more try here. Please read WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. Before we label an organization with a highly contentious term like terrorist, we need a high level of WP:VERIFIABILITY. There are a few sources for this section. But, they all quote Politico. That is, there really is only one secondary source. The primary sources are anonymous. Anonymous sources can’t be verified. When Antifa members are identified, this becomes a biographies of living persons issue, which calls for even stricter scrutiny. I think we need either the Federal Gov’t or a preponderance of sources for inclusion of Antifa in a list of terrorist organizations. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. O3000 (talk) 19:33, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

This page is inconsistent with Terrorism in the United States

This page is edited much less frequently and has different categories than Terrorism in the United States. For example, that page has a category of "Right-wing extremism and anti-government" and "White supremacy" that are comprised completely of numerous events of domestic terrorism in the United States, while this page only has "Anti-abortion violence" and "Eco-terrorism" as categories. I understand the desire to have separate articles for domestic terrorism and terrorism for the United States, but this article has diverged or has not been updated to be consistent with the "parent" category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmerlis (talk • contribs) 02:43, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Antifa

You are invited to participate in Talk:Antifa (United States)#RfC: antifa and terrorism, a discussion about whether to include that activities by American anti-fascists were labeled as domestic terrorism by the Trump administration. R2 (bleep) 22:21, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2020

Add Antifa 2606:A000:8981:F700:198D:EB39:CCC0:71F0 (talk) 01:37, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• No. Drmies (talk) 01:37, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
• why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruvlad (talk • contribs) 19:54, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Attack on the United States Capitol (2021)

Attack on the United States Capitol (2021) [...] The 2021 attack on the United States Capitol, which killed 4 insurgents and injured at least 14 police officers [...]

I doubt there is any consensus about labeling this as a terrorist attack, calling the protesters insurgents, etc. I've removed the whole section. --MarioGom (talk) 22:38, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

How the news media covered domestic terrorism on Capitol Hill

What happened at the Capitol was 'domestic terrorism,' lawmakers and experts say

RNC communications director calls Capitol violence 'domestic terrorism'

It's domestic terrorism. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:44, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Muboshgu, there are some people calling it terrorism, but I don't see consensus in RS at all. In other countries, we don't go categorizing as terrorism every protest and riot that just some people characterize as such. MarioGom (talk) 22:49, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

MarioGom, what do "other countries" have to do with this? It meets the FBI definition of domestic terrorism, Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature. Lots of sources call it such. It is what it is. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Muboshgu, some sources call it as such. Most don't. MarioGom (talk) 23:16, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

MarioGom, enough do. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Here's some more.[15][16][17][18][19][20][21] – Muboshgu (talk) 23:19, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Muboshgu, in all of these sources the label "domestic terrorism" is attributed to specific people. I'm not disputing the fact that some people call it terrorism. My point is that most RS don't label it as terrorism. MarioGom (talk) 23:24, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

We're gonna need input from more people to resolve this, I think. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:46, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• Per MarioGom I disagree most sources do not call it terrorism most national and International coverage of this crisis does not call it Terrorism.There is no consenus is WP:RS.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:46, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

The president-elect has described it as such. Reliable sources have described it as such. It conforms exactly to this article's definition of domestic terrorism. It obviously and incontrovertibly walks like a duck. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:05, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Bongwarrior:

• The president-elect has described it as such. This has zero value. Officials in many countries describe protesters as terrorists. Whenever this kind of thing came up at 2019–20 Hong Kong protests nobody took the terrorist label seriously, even when protests set people on fire. There are countless examples in our articles for protests in many countries.
• Reliable sources have described it as such. Most reliable sources covering the issue (and they are many, because there's world-wide coverage) are NOT describing this as a terrorist attack. --MarioGom (talk) 23:14, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

  MarioGom, we do not require unanimity in wording. We also don't WP:OTHERSTUFF. POTUS (well, close enough) calling it "domestic terrorism" matters. His Department of Justice will be involved in prosecuting offenders. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

  I, for one, am not going to expend much energy debating that water is wet. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:21, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• Bongwarrior, looking at the diff, the wording itself needs to be improved. Quick stab at a rewrite: The 2021 storming of the United States Capitol was carried out by supporters of outgoing President Donald Trump who gathered for the planned "Save America" rally, following numerous failed attempts by Trump and some of his allies to overturn the 2020 election results which resulted in Biden's victory, and were mainly encouraged by Trump himself during his speech and on Twitter, as well as various far-right organizations such as Proud Boys. The attack resulted in the deaths of four people and injured at least 14 police officers. The incident was described by President-Elect Joe Biden as an insurrection and borderline sedition, as a domestic terrorist attack by CNN, Hillary Clinton and other media and politicians and strongly criticized by other figures such as outgoing Vice President Mike Pence and all four living former Presidents (Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama). The events have been similarly condemned by various leaders worldwide, including Boris Johnson, Justin Trudeau, Scott Morrison, Jacinta Ardern, Iván Duque and Erna Solberg, among others, as well as respective NATO and United Nations Secretary-Generals Jens Stoltenberg and António Guterres. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I was thinking that myself. It's still a fluid situation, and the best wording hadn't had a chance to settle itself yet. That is definitely an improvement. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:19, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Can you please go for WP:RFC if you wish to add it as it will be controversial and there is no consenus here.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

RFC opened on Talk:2021 storming of the United States Capitol#RFC: Should this event be characterized as terrorism. Clearly that's not this page, but there's discussion there and I think it's reasonable that consensus needs to be established on this topic across Wikipedia. Jdphenix (talk) 00:28, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

There is no consensus to call 2021 storming of the United States Capitol as Terrorism as per this RFC.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:21, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

That's true, however there have been more developments since RFC was closed. FBI Director Christopher Wray has stated recently that the FBI considered the event as Domestic Terrorism. So the consensus made previously is moot right now because a high-ranking official has categorized it as 'Domestic Terrorism'.NSNW (talk) 14:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

After an RfC resulted in no consensus to call it terrorism -- requires a new consensus and as stated in this. A statement by a police officer, which is what the head of the FBI is, is not a reliable source for conclusive proof of criminality. That's why the U.S. and other countries have a criminal judicial system. Only judges or juries can determine matters of fact. Even when there is overwhelming evidence of guilt, Wikipedia does not assert that someone committed a crime until they are convicted.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:02, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't but i'm biased, but what do we define as terrorism, if nobody will we should and via that definition we decide. we can recognize that people will disagree or governments will, that's okay its somewhat subjective, but ill give it a shot, terrorism is an act or acts of social disruptions,perpetrated with the intent of causing fear and/or chaos. this is up for debate. but via this definition we can say then that jan 6th was as they in a way wanted chaos, and to scare the politicians into giving them their guy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruvlad (talk • contribs) 20:12, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

References

Black lives matter and other black ethnonationals

now I know I'm new here and all. however we can not in good continence ignore the adverse effects of black nationalism. not all are but enough that it is disruptive, ie the random shooting in Portland of a guy. if the roles were reversed and say it was kkk, it would be deemed an act of terror. I'm just asking we treat them the same. terrorism is terrorism if its committed by state, group, ideology, or individual its terror. Bruvlad (talk) 23:46, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

But of course. Just use reliable sources. This isn't an opinion blog. soibangla (talk) 23:50, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

True it was more just an ask to look at its effects, and the end goals of these organizations. as well an ask of treating both sides of this race conflict the same, it shouldn't matter weather or not they are white or not. that is all I'm saying.Bruvlad (talk) 15:40, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

2016 shooting of Dallas police officers

2016 shooting of Dallas police officers is missing. Why does this not count as domestic terrorism? --2003:CD:7713:945D:8C5B:E3C9:DC40:A4F4 (talk) 07:43, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Because the shooter wasn't white. 47.137.184.131 (talk) 11:45, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree. This was designated by the FBI as Domestic Terrorism and categorized as Racially or Ethnically Motivated Violent Extremism (RMVE). The absence of the Dallas incident from this page perpetuates the appearance of left-wing bias.

https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/fbi-dhs-domestic-terrorism-strategic-report.pdf Radnark (talk) 06:19, 14 April 2022 (UTC)