Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Unsourced Comments

@DHeyward: So you propose changing the title of this article to Terrorist attacks inspired by Islamist groups? Of course, the lead would need to be updated as well.- MrX 20:55, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't think I ever proposed that. Reliable sources don't make that distinction. Why would we? --DHeyward (talk) 07:00, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Are you people serious right now? The FBI classified the attack as an act of "domestic terrorism" motivated by "Islamic leanings". Even the transcript states his Islamic terror beliefs (1) You people think you know better than the FBI now? He even posted “Messages of Islamic Jihad” to social media DURING the attack. (2) This is a textbook example of Islamic terorrism. Some of you need to grow up. -- ThiefOfBagdad (talk) 15:33, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

It isn't a textbook example of terrorism sponsored or planned by a terrorist organization. The FBI and the CIA now accept that Mateen acted on his own. His "Islamic leanings" came from a rather thin understanding of some of the websites that he had read.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:55, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Could you please point out where this page claims to be specifically a list of "terrorism sponsored or planned by a terrorist organization" as opposed to merely a list of Islamist terror attacks? If not, then the fact that Mateen wasn't a card-carrying member of a terror group is wholly irrelevant and simple intellectual honesty would compel you to drop your objections to Orlando's inclusion in this list. 2601:602:9802:99B2:B4FA:4965:6831:C637 (talk) 16:01, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

See "Constructive discussion, or not" above, where I've addressed this in more detail.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:07, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

You went on at great length about an elaborate proposal for a completely rewritten new version of this page that might happen sometime in the distant future up there, yes. But that does not contradict the point that "was this sponsored by an organization?" is irrelevant to the page as it currently stands; indeed, it reinforces it, because there would be no point in your suggested change if it was, would there? If you'd like to work up a brand new version of this page and propose it, go for it! But leaving the page in its currently inaccurate and incomplete state in the meantime, and not permitting it to be maintained, is completely unwarranted and risks giving the impression that political considerations govern what goes into Wikipedia pages. (Especially when more than one of the tiny group of editors obstructing the update have let slip their own political viewpoints in the process of discussing it.) 2601:602:9802:99B2:B4FA:4965:6831:C637 (talk) 18:30, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Due to the presence of a new, high quality source (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/03/25/world/map-isis-attacks-around-the-world.html?_r=0), let us finally put this issue to bed. I do not believe we should let the RFC run the full course. I would also wager that there will be a lack of acceptance by either side (many more supports for one side, accusations of meat puppetry and canvassing on the other). Once protection expires, please include the Orlando event in the article per the abundance of quality sources. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:43, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Heres another RS (http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/21/opinions/fbi-mateen-transcript-sexton/) Even before the transcript it was known everywhere why he did it. Unfortunately as I have stated before there for whatever reason exists a double standard for the Orlando terrorist attack. Whether you explain in plain simple English or a college essay they will either say he must be affiliated with a group or political correctness overrides fact. The protection for this is also about to expire with those who want to add it for state reasons and a few users bent on making sure Orlando is not included (their sources are often from earlier on as well). May be ugly!!!ShadowDragon343 (talk) 23:32, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Uh, nope. Please see your URL (which includes "opinion"), re-read your source, and then read WP:RSOPINION. It's commentary, and not a reliable source for facts. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:20, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

As I have said elsewhere in this talk page, it is when certain persons confuse 'political correctness' for 'factual inaccuracy' that such the present political climate develops. You would do well to be careful in your assumptions, claims, and rebuttals to arguments (or nonexistent rebuttals consisting mainly of anti-PC crusading), especially on a place where NPOV reigns supreme, i.e. Wikipedia (n.b. there are certainly others). Dschslava ^Δx parlez moi 23:47, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

This should be added:

*United States June 12, 2016 – 49 people were killed and 53 injured in a mass shooting at a nightclub in Orlando, Florida. The shooter, Omar Mateen, pledged allegiance to ISIL.

Two high quality sources: CNN (non-opinion) and The New York Times. And if you don't even really like the CNN source, The New York Times classifies it as an ISIS Islamic attack. If any of you think you know better than the editors of the NYTimes, then you really need to get a reality check. Can we just add this already and get this over with. There is no confusion. There is no doubt. There's facts, and you people are opressing it. --ThiefOfBagdad (talk) 12:40, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

The only fact that matters at this point is that there is an open RfC on this question. I find it a little alarming that so many editors are in such a hurry to get this into the article, even while there is a proposal to close the RfC early. We need to observe orderly process, and some of us need to cease comments to the effect that (1) process is nothing but bureaucracy, or (2) this is nothing but obstructionism. Your out-of-process edit was quite rightly reverted, and the rationale for the revert was clearly given in that edit summary. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:52, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

On the other hand I find it a little alarming that you seem so set on waiting 30 days for this rfc despite overwhelming consensus, new high quality sources, WP:NOTBURO, and even IAR. I'm sorry that you are not satisfied with the result of this collaborative process but it's time we move on and get this right. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:14, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Please note that I had already supported an early close above. Also note that consensus is not about numbers, per WP:CONSENSUS. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:29, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

New York Times adds Orlando attack to its list of ISIS or ISIS-inspired attacks

See here: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/03/25/world/map-isis-attacks-around-the-world.html

Is that enough to put an end to this embarrassment, or do we need someone to come down from Mt. Sinai with some stone tablets? 2601:602:9802:99B2:4C8D:25DF:F7E9:49E7 (talk) 20:25, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I could be wrong here, but, tabloid-journalism? Mr rnddude (talk) 20:29, 2 July 2016 (UTC) Since some people are getting the wrong impression of accusations. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:56, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I presume this was tongue-in-cheek. If not, then no. The mainstream press is covering the Orlando, Turkey and Bangladesh attacks as Islamist terrorism despite any link to a specific group. Opposition to including them here is extremely weak and tenuous and seems motivated more about POV than RS'es. The latest argument against inclusion (that terrorists want to inspire terror and we should deny them the platform and recognition is perilously close to censorship. --DHeyward (talk) 21:30, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

So now even the New York Times is tabloid journalism? It is not proper to attack the source of the news when the news itself is accurate. Cyberpunkas (talk) 21:52, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I asked a question, didn't make a comment, thanks for the @DHeyward:. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:56, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I looked again at the article, yeah no, definitely not tabloid journalism, shouldn't have needed to ask. A more accurate portrayal would be slightly jumping the gun since Turkey, although very likely to be an ISIS Islamist attack, is yet to have a conclusive investigation. Didn't even know about Bangladesh, well, unfortunate. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:03, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

"A more accurate portrayal would be slightly jumping the gun" -- wait a second, is Wikipedia second-guessing the New York Times now? What happened to all that stuff about no original research? 2601:602:9802:99B2:243D:BE0E:E170:563F (talk) 06:42, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

You'd think that the government report would supersede an article in the New York Times, but apparently not, and no, I am second guessing the New York Times, not Wikipedia, this is why we have a thing called consensus, so that I can be superseded by well thought out argument. That very same thing you're pushing to be skipped over because there's more votes for yes then no. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:11, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

As you were apparently unfamiliar enough with the New York Times to wonder if it was a "tabloid," I'm not sure how valuable that second-guessing is. Perhaps you should bow out of this topic, if you are that unacquainted with it. 2601:602:9802:99B2:B4FA:4965:6831:C637 (talk) 18:33, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not a New Yorker, nor an American, I don't read your news. So why did I second guess it? because its already made one other attribution (Ataturk bombings) that the Turkish government flatly denied, you can find the reference for it somewhere above. Tabloid journalism can take place even outside known tabloid journals, simply enough, I made a mistake, that's it. I'd bow out of the discussion, if I were unacquainted with the discussion, I may be unacquainted with the New Yorker (not may because I am) but the New Yorker isn't the discussion, only a part of it. Unacquainted with the topic, a bit hard to be, you'd have to be unacquainted with reality, though I figure you think I voted no as well and therefore am. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Are you mistaking the New Yorker with the New York Times? The Times is a very well respected newspaper, and the New Yorker is a magazine full of essays and cartoons. R00b07 (talk) 10:49, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

No I was referring to people from New York as New Yorkers, though I understand the confusion. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:57, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

The New Yorker is one of my favorite magazines. It's full of beautiful essays like this and articles like this and astute cartoons. It's disconcerting to see this formidable powerhouse of good writing reduced to a magazine full of essays and cartoons :( Dschslava ^Δx parlez moi 21:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I can't stop laughing about that Mt. Sinai part. Absolute Genius. Oh yeah, and I also agree. R00b07 (talk) 09:29, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Conservatism?

Obviously this page should belong to WikiProject Islam and WikiProject Terrorism, but I think that including it in WikiProject Conservatism could be considered a form of canvassing. I'm firmly on the Breitbart side of the Orlando Nightclub Shooting debacle, but I think in general the association of this list with a political philosophy is a negative thing. There is no fundamental philosophical connection between political conservatism and Islam, political conservatives simply tend to have similar views on the issue. I have no problem with political conservatives who want to ensure that Islamic/ist terrorism is handled honestly on Wikipedia joining WP Islam or WP Terrorism, in fact that would be an excellent idea. But this list is no more related to conservatism than liberalism, and drawing a host of ideological people to this talk page to battle one another is not a good thing. Brianbleakley (talk | contribs) 19:35, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

You should then go take it up with the WikiProject itself. They are responsible for what is and what is not in their scope. Dschslava ^Δx parlez moi 19:59, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

That's an interesting point. Wikiprojects run the spectrum from ideological, like Conservatism, to things, like Terrorism or Trains. Where does Islam fall as both a thing (religion) and an ideology? What about Wikiproject Feminism? And should the canvassing rules apply differently to different Wikiprojects? I don't have an answer but it's a resaonble question. 20:37, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I noticed this too. This has nothing directly related to that project any more than any other political project. Zzuuzz (admin participating on the page), can I ask your take on this? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:52, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

@. I also find it hard to fathom the link. Conservatism meaning different things in different places, my guess is it's about arguing the case for returning to 'original values', but I personally find this tenuous. Ping to Dimadick who added the tag one year ago[1]. As Dschslava says above, it's generally up to the projects what they include within their scope because it's generally unimportant for the content (talk about canvassing from a Wikiproject is probably overstating reality), but it can also be up to article editors to maintain the talk page according to local consensus. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:28, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I added the tag because Islamism as a modern political ideology is defined as politically, religiously, and morally conservative, with its goals including the rejection of non-Muslim and Western influences (and innovations) on the military, economic, political, social, or cultural life in the Muslim world. It is quite distinct from Islam as a religion (Muslims vary wildly on actual political ideologies and on their stance towards religion) and I was not thinking of Western conservatives when adding the tag. Why do you feel that Islamism is "no more related to conservatism than liberalism" or that this page attracts ideological battles? And as for battles, the archives of the talk page reveal several arguments on content, but no actual edit wars since January. Dimadick (talk) 08:59, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I meant that the list was not related to American political conservatism (which is what I assume the Wikiproject is about). You are correct that Islamism is a form of conservatism. But clearly this page is attracting partisan battles, if not ideological ones... Brianbleakley (talk | contribs) 20:59, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

The WikiProject covers articles relating to conservatism as a whole. But the very presence of that tag at the top of the page, warranted or not, gives me some serious doubts about the neutrality of the article, present or not; "conservatism" and "Islamism", colloquially, go not well together. Dschslava ^Δx parlez moi 21:36, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2016

I noticed that the Orlando attack is missing from the list of Islamic terrorist attacks. I know there have been a lot of Internet memes trying to claim that it wasn’t Islamic, but homophobia for example. I submit for your consideration that it can be both. First, there are multiple sources that consider the Orlando attacks to be both Islamic and Terrorist. It actually parallels the Fort Hood and San Bernardino attacks, where a self-radicalized attacker was inspired by radical Islamic ideology he learned on the Internet. He then selected a target he knew and attacked. As far as the definition for what a “reliable source” is, how do you handle that with things that are so political? The New York Times editorial page is certainly not an unbiased source. If their editorial page is disqualified, would you disqualify the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal as well? The AP Stylebook is influenced by politics and you will see certain English-language sources avoid words, whether because the stylebook states a preferred way or their own individual bias. (For more on this, see the AP Stylebook regarding the change from using the term illegal immigrants to undocumented workers to describe those who are unlawfully present in the U.S.

Cite: 

I would argue that your definition should not be solely whether a single news article includes the words “terrorism” and “Islamic.” Rather, you should take into consideration whether or not the attacker claimed his motivation was Islam and whether a known Islamic terrorist organization congratulates, endorses, or claims responsibility for an attack. (For example, the Irish Republican Army has not claimed credit for any of the attacks on the Islamic terror attack list, even though the organization blew up some buildings and engaged in terrorist activity in the past.) Orlando Attack Sources:

For those that argue the Orlando attack was just a hate crime because of homophobia, consider that homosexual behavior still qualifies for the death penalty in many Islamic countries, and in Daesh-controlled areas. Islam itself recommends violence against homosexuals:

Here are some sources for terrorist attacks not currently listed:

References

DeanSoCal (talk) 05:45, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Not done: On going rfc on this very talk page regarding this issue EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:11, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

https://www.fbi.gov/tampa/press-releases/2016/investigative-update-regarding-pulse-nightclub-shooting Done, comment given, from the shooter himself. From the FBI press release, have fun saying this guy wasn't doing it as an islamic terror attack after reading it. anyone waiting for an RFC after reading that is pushing an agenda, period. 65.29.77.61 (talk) 18:01, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Do not pretend to know the motives of other editors. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:03, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I would agree with your statement on the IP above not pretending to know the motivations of other editors, but I also find it amazingly hypocritical how these same other editors are pretending to know about the motivations of the Orlando shooter, regardless of the all the facts and statements from the FBI and reporting from RS that disagree with their assumption. I don't normally comment on Wikipedia so please correct me if I'm wrong; but every single argument in that RfC purporting that Orlando was NOT a terrorist attack is based entirely on OR and unsubstantiated rumors directly contradicted by the primary authorities and recent RS that have reported on the matter. 69.114.53.16 (talk) 19:26, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not pretending, it's pretty obvious. Every single fact tells them they're wrong. They have transcripts, they have recordings in the shooters own voice, yet somehow they just buried their head in the sand? Malice or ignorance, pick one. It can't be ignorance because I know they can left click a link. 65.29.77.61 (talk) 03:17, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

A few days old, but I'll reply just to put an end to any thought that this denial of an edit request was unjustified. Because there is an ongoing RfC on what you were proposing to add to the list, regardless of the verifiability or reliability or accuracy of your text or sources, it cannot be added until the RfC is closed. Dschslava ^Δx parlez moi 21:39, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

June 28 Ataturk airport bombing

So, should we add this bombing to the list right now, as it's current, or should we wait until we get full details? Please answer. Awesomegaming (talk) 23:47, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Do you have a source saying that it was an Islamist terrorist attack?- MrX 00:25, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

No. We must wait for full details. Brianbleakley (talk) 17:24, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

We need to be politically correct as much as possible so we shouldn't include it. Even if the rest of the world is reporting it to be such. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:32, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Would this article be considered a valid source? The article itself has only anonymous sources, and is thus hearsay. On the other hand, it is hearsay from a 'reputable' source. It is quite likely that the link to ISIS is real- I'm not disputing that. I'm just curious about the standard of sourcing required for this sort of thing. Brianbleakley (talk) 17:54, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually, there does seem to be an official statement "The findings of our security forces point at the Daesh organization as the perpetrators of this terror attack," Yildirim said, using the Arabic name for ISIS. "Even though the indications suggest Daesh, our investigations are continuing." Brianbleakley (talk) 18:01, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Anyone who wants to point to any other motivation on the Ataturk bombings, other than Islamic Terror, feel free. R00b07 (talk) 23:59, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Edit: While I still agree with my slightly younger self (It's Islamist Terrorism any way you slice it), we should wait until more details come in. ISIS are the only suspected perpretators, but they still haven't claimed responsibility. Since Wikipedia has no deadline, I say we should wait till the full details. R00b07 (talk) 09:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! Awesomegaming (talk) 22:14, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive editing in the middle of an RfC

Twice, editors have restored the Orlando shooting to this list, in spite of consensus to do so in the ongong RfC. Not only is this disruptive, it's out of process as detailed at WP:RFC#Suggestions for responding, which says

"Edits to content under RfC discussion may be particularly controversial. Avoid making edits that others may view as unhelpful. Editing after others have raised objections may be viewed as disruptive editing or edit warring. Be patient; make your improvements in accord with consensus after the RFC is resolved."

The RfC needs to be allowed to run its course, and consensus weighed by an admin, before this material is reintroduced.- MrX 15:33, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Did you remove the attack from the list? If so, it should be reinstated immediately and the RfC should be completed to decide if it should be removed. Not the other way around. Why didn't you start a talk section about it instead of removing it immediately? Iksnyrk (talk) 20:11, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

There is no controversy. It was a self proclaimed islamic terrorist event. It's actually one of the very that can be completely verified as knowing what the motivation was.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.91.188.153 (talk • contribs) 17:43, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

The alternative explanation is that Omar Mateen was a crank/fantasist/mentally ill who proclaimed an Islamic motive after reading a few websites. As others have pointed out, if Mateen had claimed to be Napoleon, the Orlando shooting would not be described as the work of the French Empire. Motive is for the investigators to determine. It's also worrying that this is being hyped up on Breitbart, which is disrupting the normal editing process.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:57, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

But, he didn't, Blanch. Stop propagandizing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.190.75.9 (talk) 19:07, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, if he claimed he were Napoleon and then France took credit for it we'd probably describe it as the work of France, don't you think? ISIL, an Islamic terrorist group, claims responsibility, do they not?--2607:EA00:107:2401:A13E:8174:2794:B667 (talk) 20:23, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

The Charleston church shooting is currently in the category White supremacy in the United States despite the perpetrator having had no formal links to white supremacist groups. The motive was determined via consulting his manifesto and circumstantial evidence about which websites he had visited. The article itself features statements that cast doubt over the white supremacist element of the attack -- "I don't think the church was his primary target because he told us he was going for the school. But I think he couldn't get into the school because of the security ... so I think he just settled for the church." Mateen's manifesto was transmitted via phone calls and the transcript features numerous mentions of Islamism and ideas frequently expressed by groups that are clearly Islamist. If we're going to cast aspersions over one manifesto, then it would only seem unbiased to call the motive on the other attack suspect, too. In fact, this would require every manifesto to be treated, as you say, like a product of mental illness of no relevance to the motive for the attack. --Toomanyaccountsargh (talk) 19:11, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

We are NOT going to have another content discussion about this here, pointlessly redundant with the open RfC. This is a thread about process, which is independent of any content questions. The listing is disputed and, as such, should stay out until consensus is reached to include it. Per WP:ONUS, "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." ―Mandruss ☎ 21:18, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

And since full protection has expired, it has been restored thrice more. Again, do not add Orlando to the list until the RfC is closed. Dschslava ^Δx parlez moi 22:50, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 1 July 2016

I do not believe there is a credible citation for including the DC sniper John Muhammad on this list. While he was a follower of the Nation of Islam, I think this page needs to cite some evidence of motivation to consider this an "Islamist" attack.

104.129.196.126 (talk) 21:29, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

According to a source at Beltway sniper attacks#Motive, "[a] series of trial exhibits suggested Malvo and Muhammad were motivated by an affinity for Islamist Jihad." The source, however, is a newspaper editorial, and newspaper editorials are not reliable sources for facts per WP:RSOPINION. I think the Beltway sniper attacks should be removed from the list. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:01, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz: Please remove the Beltway sniper attacks (fifth item in 2002) from the list. There are no reliable sources referring to the attacks as Islamist terrorist attacks in this article, at Beltway sniper attacks, or at John Allen Muhammad. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:10, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I've removed this item, thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:16, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Hey, @Zzuuzz:, since you seem to be a public-spirited fellow with time on your hands, mind adding Orlando to the list while you're here and ending this ridiculous embarrassment of an argument? 2601:602:9802:99B2:4C8C:7DAB:340E:C53F (talk) 07:46, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

All that's required is for someone to close the RfC above. I can steal brief moments of time to help with certain requests, but closing this discussion (and following up any disputes) is currently outside of my available time commitment. While I'm here, I can explain that the reasoning for removing this item is elaborated by others below. As an admin who is also in the UK, I also strongly concur with the comments about the Daily Mail. But having read the DM article as well as our own, it appears the motive is not being described as Islamist. To describe it as a "Nation of Islam attack" (below) seems plain incorrect. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:46, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:36, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz: Are we are seriously purging Nation of Islam attacks from the list now? Is there a place on Wikipedia where I can petition to have this list renamed to "List of Islamist terrorist attacks motivated by Wahhabism", since apparently the qualifications for an attack appearing on this list are getting more stringent every day? R00b07 (talk) 00:44, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I've said elsewhere that we should nail down the inclusion criteria first. That's a tough job but, once done, the rest is relatively easy. The effect is the same as a Wikipedia guideline, eliminating the need for repeated, ad hoc, time-wasting re-hashing of the same issues, often resulting in conflicting results. From an efficiency standpoint we should always avoid putting horses before carts. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:27, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

This is why I love full protection sometimes, especially on an article that just got watched by scores of people. That's where the trenches are.

I agree the criteria should be defined per WP:RS or the article should be adjusted to fit what definition can be arrived at thusly. TimothyJosephWood 01:55, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

For clarity R00b07; [2] if this is indeed Clark County Prosecution then the motive is as far as it is known "murky". I find it odd that a government website would link to Wikipedia of all places but okay then. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:46, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

It's a vanity project—not to mention a violation of copyright laws and a waste of taxpayer funds. Why does the prosecutor's office in Clark County, Indiana, have a webpage about sniper attacks that took place hundreds of miles away in the Washington, DC, suburbs? To promote his personal pro-death views. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:16, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that clarification, I was wondering what it was about myself. Considered it a bit dubious but useful enough to demonstrate the issue. Unfortunately, this article has its own issues (simply by existing). Mr rnddude (talk) 03:22, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Can you knuckleheads cite any reliable sources that refer to Muhammad as an Islamist terrorist or the sniper attacks as Islamist terrorist attacks, or are you just blowing hot air? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:02, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps avoid calling people stupid. That said, Malik is right, citations or bust, that's one of the guiding principles of Wikipedia. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:26, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Citations where? In the lead, which defines criteria for the list? There are none. That's what opens this up to be a breeding ground for WP:OR and that's why this whole debate over the last 24 hours is a thing. It's an exercise in OR. TimothyJosephWood 03:04, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

You have a point, this is more or less an exercise in OR. Perhaps a first step would be identifying what this list is about. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:08, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

To be clear, there is no definition of Islamist to work from. That's the problem. TimothyJosephWood 03:10, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Having a definition of Islamism or terrorism would encourage original research. ("It doesn't matter what everybody calls it, it's a textbook example of terrorism." "It doesn't matter what you call it, it fits the definition of Islamism.") For years, we've relied on a simple rule: If reliable sources describe an incident as a terrorist attack and attribute it to Islamists, it's an Islamist terrorist attack. It's really quite simple. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:21, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Fair point. TimothyJosephWood 05:45, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

It's really quite simple. Actually, it's not as simple as all that, per WP:ONUS, widespread belief notwithstanding. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:30, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Follow up: Do all of the sources cited for the killings listed thus far say "Islamist" or is that assumed from terms like "Islamic"? TimothyJosephWood 05:49, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

We had an RfC about that. If an incident is described by reliable sources as a terrorist attack and attributed to a known Islamist organization, we agreed that it can be included without a source explicitly attributing it to Islamists. The attacks in Israel that are included are (I believe) all attributed to Hamas, an Islamist organization. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 11:38, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz: Sources that say Beltway Sniper attack was indeed a radical Islamic attack. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1226524/Wife-Washington-sniper-reveals-chilling-reasons-husband-gunned-13-strangers-John-Muhammad-Mildred.html http://www.adherents.com/people/pm/Lee_Boyd_Malvo.html Cyberpunkas (talk) 06:15, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

One, the adherents site doesn't say anything about Islam being an inspiration for the attacks. Any interpretation of what is says as that would be quite the stretch and thus WP:OR. Second, the Daily Mail is a notoriously unreliable tabloid. I would rather trust the word of an arbitrary drop-bear high on eucalyptus drowning in vodka over in Russia than the Daily Mail. Dschslava ^Δx parlez moi 06:21, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

See WP:RS. Restoring my comment that was removed by Cyberpunkas in this edit EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:23, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Dschslava; You sir win the rebuttal of the week award with that comment. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:25, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Oooh, so that's how I worm myself into fleeting Wiki immortality. I must say, I quite like it. Dschslava ^Δx parlez moi 06:28, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Sources confirm he converted to Nation of Islam and then sought to inflict violence his victims. Please at least acknowledge there are reliable sources, including his wife, that back up that fact. All this proof makes your doubt unreasonable. You guys asked for sources, claiming that there are none. Here are some. Why can't you guys show that his wife's comments as well as those sources comments are wrong? Cyberpunkas (talk) 06:28, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Because these sources are not considered to be reliable. Oh, and there's WP:OR for the first source. Dschslava ^Δx parlez moi 06:31, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I believe eye witness testimony from his wife as well as backed up dates and fact checks count as reliable and WP:OR.Cyberpunkas (talk) 06:41, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Also again no proof that the sources are unreliable outside of you remarking that they are unreliable. Cyberpunkas (talk) 06:45, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Let's see, refer to WP:RS if you think a statement made by the wife of the attacker qualifies as a reliable source. Wikipedia is based on scholarship, such as journals, books and research papers and some news sources, varies from outlet to outlet and the type of writing, editorials are suspect because they contain opinions in the place of facts. Some random off the streets (and yes that includes the attacker's wife) is not what we here consider reliable. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:49, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

This is not an editorial if they actually went out and got witness testimonies, and fact checked the dates and background info. Wikipedia is based on scholarship and what better scholarship to his personal life than primary sources like his wife? In our legal system and in academic history, eye witness accounts (primary sources) are more reliable than any journal, which is considered a secondary sourceCyberpunkas (talk) 06:55, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Any, literally any sources are better than primary ones (except for the Daily Mail. In other words unreliable sources). There's a reason we go for secondary sources and that's 1. bias/POV, 2. scholarly research/journalistic research, and/or 3. one step removed from the event. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:57, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Again you just say Daily Mail is unreliable without any proof or reason. Secondary sources base themselves off of primary sources. That's how historians work, that's how courts work, and thought's how the media works. Secondary sources have more disadvantage of of 1. scholarly bias 2. hearsay inaccuracy (every play telephone?) 3. two+ steps removed from event.Cyberpunkas (talk) 07:03, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Secondary sources do base themselves on primary sources, that's true, however, there's a reason they're preferred. Good scholarly research comes from a neutral point of view, an inherent lack of bias. Obviously nobody's perfect and there's always bound to be some bias, but we work towards minimizing that. Of course, details are lost with every step removed, scholarly research is no exception, again, we try to minimize that by covering an extensive range of sources. What is missing in one source, may not be missing in another, then again, some things are lost to time and we can never get them back. We just live with it. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:11, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

@Cyberpunkas:, you requested me to prove that the Daily Mail is unreliable, well, refer to WP:DAILYMAIL. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:14, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Linking to another wiki page where another editor wrote that they don't like Daily Mail is not proving that Daily Mail is unreliable. This whole removing of the Beltway Sniper attacks indicate the sort of bias you are purporting to combat. And nobody in the academic world thinks secondary sources are preferable to primary sources. Good scholarly research uses primary sources like eye witness accounts first before relying on second hand sources. Professional journalism, academic historians, legal procedure, criminal procedure all prefer primary sources. The reason you are making a big deal out of Daily Mail is because someone actually gave you a source that confirms the Beltway Sniper shootings is an Islamic attack based on the guy's wife's testimony. Cyberpunkas (talk) 16:58, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I get where your coming from Cyberpunkas, but the standard on Wikipedia for secondary sources is actually really important for the Wiki. Not only do reliable secondary sources usually (supposed to be always) do real fact checking to ensure accuracy and reality - whereas primary sources can say whatever they want - but they've usually also reported in a manner that makes them (and therefore by repeating it, us) not liable for any legal issues. Not that the guys wife is necessarily lying, wrong, or were her words constituting slander or defamation what have you, but it's one hell of a lot easier to just quote secondary sources on issues then make decisions like that on a case by case basis. Those same journalists, academic historians, and legal cases are reliable and printable here, but not the primaries they are based on. There are of course exceptions to this; such as repeating direct quotes from a person who may be a primary source when there's a Wikipedia entrey involving them, but they can't be used as the primary for sourcing information. SpeakerOfReason (be gentle!) 19:10, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Do correct me if I'm wrong, the Daily Mail (which I also view as not a good source) is reporting the wife saying that he committed these attacks as a smokescreen to kill her: "He was trying to place me in the middle of all these killings, so that when he finally took me out, the police would think I was just another sniper victim". There's no indication of an "Islamic attack". -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:02, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz:Here's the quote that I am talking about "While Mildred Muhammad saw religion as a means for peaceful social change, her husband was convinced that America's injustices could be overcome only by subversion and violence." Also I found another old Washington Post article with direct words by Malvo: The Sept. 11, 2001, attacks had a considerable impact on Muhammad. "He said bloodshed begets bloodshed," Malvo said, summarizing Muhammad's reaction. "It's a process. America began this. Osama bin Laden didn't develop in a vacuum." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/23/AR2006052300240_2.html Cyberpunkas (talk) 22:14, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

But Mildred Muhammad is, besides being a primary source, his estranged (ex-)wife (happily, I suppose). Why should we trust her? Dschslava ^Δx parlez moi 22:29, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

That is a ridiculous standard. I wonder if you would apply that standard to anyone else's wife? Why should you trust a wife to accurately describe her husband? Also, Malvo clearly indicates that the Beltway Snipers, being Nation of Islam converts, wanted to make America pay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyberpunkas (talk • contribs) 05:01, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Cyberpunkas, no that is not a ridiculous standard. We don't trust people to describe other people to whom they would have a bias. A wife to a husband, a child to a parent, or vice versa, we don't accept those kinds of sources, not without a box of salt. Allow me to outline Wikipedia's policy on secondary and primary sources, since you refuse to read the policy yourself, or if you have, didn't understand it. Secondary sources > primary sources. Where a secondary source is available use it, where a primary source must be used, use it carefully. For that matter reliable sources are required and they include and are limited to; scholarly works, journalism, vendor and e-commerce source (under strict guidelines) and in rare cases biased and opinionated sources to highlight different viewpoints. That is generally it. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:44, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Whereas there are both primary and secondary sources available now. So you are just arguing for the sake of arguing. Please don't patronize my understanding of Wikipedia's policy. Both primary and secondary sources are reliable unless there is reason to believe they are not. You are just accusing the wife of bias without any reason to back it up. This is just like your comment about the Daily Mail, where you tried to prove it is unreliable by linking to another page where some other editor wrote it is unreliable. In addition to the wife, Malvo also indicated that the Beltway Snipers, being Nation of Islam converts, wanted to make America pay and were inspired by Osama Bin Laden.Cyberpunkas (talk) 16:01, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Cyberpunkas, maybe I missed it, but I didn't see where the Daily Mail article attributes the Beltway sniper attacks to Islamism. (It doesn't refer to them as terrorist attacks either, but that's a different matter.) Could you please quote the sentence for me? Thank you. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:25, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

@MShabazz:Here's the quote that I am talking about "While Mildred Muhammad saw religion as a means for peaceful social change, her husband was convinced that America's injustices could be overcome only by subversion and violence." Also I found another old Washington Post article with direct words by Malvo: The Sept. 11, 2001, attacks had a considerable impact on Muhammad. "He said bloodshed begets bloodshed," Malvo said, summarizing Muhammad's reaction. "It's a process. America began this. Osama bin Laden didn't develop in a vacuum." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/23/AR2006052300240_2.htmlCyberpunkas (talk) 04:05, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Neither of those say the Beltway sniper shootings were motivated by Islamism. Not by a long shot. Please read WP:No original research, especially "Using sources", which says in part:

Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources.

Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:15, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 6 July 2016 a

The attack on homosexuals in Florida was clearly an attack committed by a terrorist, however, it appears that you don't care about facts and evidence.

Keep pushing, criminals.

70.197.137.7 (talk) 00:26, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

N Not done. Ongoing RfC on this very page on this very subject. Dschslava ^Δx parlez moi 00:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

• Criminals? one, read the article title "Islamist terrorists" not any terrorists. But I digress. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:44, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Sourced Discussion on Orlando; No comments without sources please

(1)Omar Mateen said to victims, police , media, and online that he was doing it motivated by ISIS and in response to US bombing overseas of islamic countries and never mentioned any other motive. ; (2) Official and reliable sources have acknowledged that radicalization and terrorism are motives for the Orlando attack (3) official sources discounting motivations related to being gay

• Mateen's statements added "confusion" about his inspiration for the attack Mateen's motivations may never be narrowed down to just one. There is no evidence that Mateen was directed by an outside terror organization.

- MrX 13:11, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I think the policy of the Obama administration to avoid the words "islamic terror" creates some of this debate.. It makes it easy to read into the words of FBI director James Comey. The "confusion" is a quote from the Speech given by FBI Director Comey. In it the director stated that Omar Mateen's support of the Boston Marathon bombers, an al Nusra suicide bomber, and ISIL "adds a little bit to the confusion about his motives". But in the whole speech it is clear that James Comey and the FBI believe Mateen (1) "made clear his affinity, at the time of the attack, for ISIL, and generally, leading up to the attack, for radical Islamist groups."; (2) that they "are highly confident that this killer was radicalized, and at least, in some part, through the Internet." and that the reason for FBI involvement as "strong indications of radicalization by this killer, and a potential inspiration by foreign terrorist organizations". Mrdthree (talk) 15:26, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

The second article (CNN timeline ) Has a general introduction with a quote from AG Loretta Lynch ("I cannot tell you definitively that we will ever narrow it down to one motivation") but the contents of the article identify only one (and no other) motive for the attack: ISIS inspired terrorism. The outline of the article is: General Intro, 2014 FBI investigations of Mateen (re:Al-Awlaki); financial preparations of Mateen; surveillance trips by Mateen; firearms and body armor purchases by Mateen; the attack; pro ISIS facebook posts, texts, and calls.Mrdthree (talk) 00:26, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

@MrX: The NY Times classifies the attack as Islamist inspired terrorism and includes them in their list of ISIS attacks around the world. Point by point:

• The "confusion" was only about which Islamist group he supported (or whether he was only praising the suicide bomber recruited from Florida), not whether it was Islamist inspired. That's in the source provided.
• There is no requirement that Mateen's motives be reduced to one.
• There is no requirement that his actions be directed by an outside organization. They were inspired by, praised by and claimed by ISIS.

--DHeyward (talk) 20:32, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

References

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrdthree (talk • contribs) 12:50, July 3, 2016 (UTC)

So, reading through the talk pages I see a lot of spirited discussion. This has clearly become a political/ideological discussion. You folks may need to treat this article the same way as Abortion.

I would suggest that instead of requiring consensus on each event, you come up with a list of tests to determine whether an event is Islamic Terrorism.

First, we should recognize that Islam is an ideology, not a race. Frankly, one need only look to Wikipedia to realize that there are many Muslims who are Caucasians, including moat of the people of North Africa and the Middle East. Charges of "racism" should addressed by asking how white people can be racist against white people. They can easily have ideological differences.

[3][4][5]

The ideology transcends race, with adherents of all the races, including South Asian to African to Middle Eastern to immigrants to Europe and America.

[6][7][8][9]

If you're worried about an entire people group being seen as terrorists, then instead of calling them racists I suggest you include examples of Muslims fighting against jihad. This has been going on for 1000 years, since El Cid and the moorish armies fought against the invading jihadis.

In the conflict with Daesh a variety of Muslims have condemned their ideology and fought back. [10][11][12][13]

And Hindus: [14][15]

There is a split in the Islamic world that drives the different factions of the ideology. The Mecca verses are peaceful. The Medina verses not so much. You see both of these ideologies reflected within Islam as different factions. But both are in the Quran.

[16][17][18]

Rather trying to reach consensus on every event, perhaps it would be better to come up with criteria by consensus, then apply that criteria to events.

For example:

1) The religion someone grows up with is probably not enough to define a crime as ideologically-driven.

2) Conversions to a religion shared by the individuals who they participate in the attack with should be scrutinized closely. Mental illness may be the chemistry in the brain. But no two people can have the same brain chemistry. They need a shared ideology to commit acts of terror together.

[19][20]

3) One element to consider is whether a known Islamic terrorist group claims responsibility or celebrates an attack.

[21][22][23]

4) Separately heavy weight should be given to the claims by attackers, when they claim allegiance to an ideological group.

[24][25][26][27][28]

5) An ideology does not require material support or direction from a larger organization. Some individuals are affluent enough to purchase their own supplies. They self-fund. [29]

6) If their ideology is to kill infidels, then they may simply define their target group. Sometimes that is defined as non-Muslims: [30][31]

7) Sometimes they simply attack the non-pious foreigners, such as nightclubs and resorts. Places where people gather to drink alcohol. [32][33][34][35][36]

8) Or simply attacking foreigners. This is why they attacked the International terminal in Turkey, not the Domestic terminal, and a bakery frequented by foreigners in Bangladesh. [37][38]

04:52, 5 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeanSoCal (talk • contribs)

That's a very long comment. I've reduced all of your links for legibility's sake, without, so far as I can ascertain, changing the meaning in any way. Dschslava ^Δx parlez moi 05:49, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

In any case, I think that we should start putting together proposals for the RfC that should follow the current one on how the list should be divided. Pinging EvergreenFir Mandruss DHeyward MrX R00b07 Malik Shabazz, off the top of my head. Dschslava ^Δx parlez moi 05:52, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

My first thought is that we should decide format and categories first, without considering which events go in which categories. I hesitate to even use the word category in this context, given its usual Wikipedia definition, but I can't think of a better word right now. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:43, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

DeanSoCal, please read the comments I have left elsewhere on this page. There already are simple criteria for inclusion in the list: if reliable sources describe an incident as a terrorist attack and attribute it to Islamists or to a known Islamist organization (without using the word Islamist), it qualifies for inclusion. If not, it's original research and doesn't get included. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 11:07, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I believe this source [39] is reliable and describes the incident as an Islamist terror attack. This should put the issue to bed. Now let's get it added to the article so we can all move on. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:53, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, you seem to have misinterpreted both of our comments. This is a discussion for inclusion criteria, not about Orlando. In any case, you'll notice that the article is protected yet again because of overly enthusiastic perhaps-well-meaning-perhaps-not contributors adding Orlando back in, even as the RfC is not closed. Dschslava ^Δx parlez moi 20:32, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes it looks like I responded to the wrong comment. At least I was in the right section. Why should we drag our feet and wait for an RFC that many are calling SNOW Support when new and improved sourcing [40] supports inclusion. To pull from IAR, if a rule prevents you from improving Wikipedia, ignore it. This will be my last comment here, as I've said what I could and tried to add what I could. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:46, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

We should "drag our feet" because process is important. Read it, don't just glance at the nutshell and the photo captions. And please, don't play the legalistic "it's only an essay" card. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:32, 6 July 2016 (UTC)