Jump to content

Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

RfC: Should the Orlando shooting be included in this list?

INCLUDE:

Closing per a request at WP:ANRFC. There is a clear consensus that 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting should be included in this list because reliable sources have treated the shooting as an Islamist terrorist attack. For example, an editor noted that The New York Times has included the attack in the article "How Many People Have Been Killed in ISIS Attacks Around the World", which contains a map and a list of the attacks.

Initial opinions were largely against including the article on the list owing to the lack of details and a reluctance to rush to judgment, but as time passed and more details were revealed, there was a clear reversal in the trend with most editors supporting the article's inclusion on the list.

I am closing this RfC early based on the clear consensus for an early closure here.

Cunard (talk) 05:55, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting be included in this list? 00:44, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Survey

I am striking my vote since I don't care either way. As of this moment, it is being treated as an "ISIS-inspired" attack, whatever that means exactly. See this NYT article for instance. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 11:06, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong yes: The attacker was reported by innumerable sources, including law enforcement agencies as well as numerous media outlets, as pledging allegiance to Islamist terror organizations and leaders and repeatedly stating that he was carrying out the attack in the name of Islam. Political considerations, such as those that led the FBI to attempt to redact mentions of Islam or ISIS from the transcripts of his calls, can and must not be taken into account when compiling data for an impartial encyclopedia. 2601:602:9802:99B2:B5B0:510C:53AF:F763 (talk) 02:19, 23 June 2016 (UTC) — 2601:602:9802:99B2:B5B0:510C:53AF:F763 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Comment: "Political considerations...can and must not be taken into account..." What do you mean to imply here? That sentence not only makes no sense, but you are also suggesting that an independent, impartial encyclopedia should presume that the official statements of law enforcement agencies should be completely disregarded when documenting an ongoing event involving WP:BLPs. Your "political considerations" are nothing more than conspiratorial nonsense. <> Alt lys er svunnet hen (talk) 08:34, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

*Too early to vote There is evidence for the position but there are developing stories that make it a mistake to commit to a particular conclusion now. As it is hard to undo these votes I would rather just leave the issue on hold and wait for evidence to develop. Mrdthree (talk) 03:30, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment: The FBI has further investigated and found that there was no evidence Mateen was gay. http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2016/06/orlando_shooter_gay_omar_matee.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marquis de Faux (talk • contribs) 17:15, 30 June 2016

There isn't a vote to be had here. http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/20/us/orlando-nightclub-shooting/ He pledged allegiance to ISIL's leader and ISIL in his 911 call. It shuold obviously included. Anyone saying no needs to have hteir head examined.65.29.77.61 (talk) 05:24, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

User:65.29.77.61, no one is trying to suppress or exclude info about his 'allegiance calls'. But investigation is still unclear as to how much this was a conscious terrorist attack, how much homophobia, how much a disturbed individual best compared with a school-shooter. The true picture is that we don't know yet which it truly was. Pincrete (talk) 16:32, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Taking a gander at the other Islamist attacks, it's fairly obvious common-sense-wise why he did what he did. The tricky part is getting good sources to back up that what he did is inline with the THOUSANDS of other Islamist attacks that have happened across the globe. R00b07 (talk) 02:07, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
  • And yet this same article had entries where the terrorist "claimed allegiance" to ISIS so is therefore included on the list. Same here. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:56, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Somebody claiming to be Napoleon or from Mars is obviously wrong/lying though. So I don't think this is a valid argument. Somebody claiming allegiance to Napoleon and attacking a gay club would not act in allegiance to Napoleon because it does not align with Napoleon's goals. Somebody claiming allegiance with IS and attacking a gay club does act in allegiance with IS. It does not matter if he was radicalized abroad, domestic or on the internet. It does not matter if he acted by order of IS or not. So people arguing that this was not an islamist terrorist attack are basically saying it was a false flag operation to discredit IS? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.202.124.186 (talk) 10:07, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Feel free to read this section to learn what people are saying. I don't think any of them are saying that. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:21, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Ambivalent - As pointed out above, other entries on this list have been made based on perpetrator claims. However, the current state of the investigator suggests other motives are possible (if not likely). I'm ambivalent because, on one hand, sources treated this as an Islamist terrorist attack. On the other hand, there's now doubt about that characterization. If it's included, we can always take it down should the investigation prove otherwise. The reverse is true too; we can always add it later. Our task is a bit like those of pollsters at fivethirtyeight predicting election outcomes: we must consider the trend and trajectory of the RS, and give weight based on recency, reputation, and depth. There's ample reason to include it based on older information, but sufficient reason to exclude it based on newer, better information. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:22, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Too early to say Therefore not yet. Whilst I respect EvergreenFir's we can add it or take it out assessment, I prefer the 'add it when clear' option. Alternatively make the text reflect that this is one of the theories being speculated about at present. We just don't know what the motive was yet. Pincrete (talk) 16:50, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • No: The more we learn about Omar Mateen, the more he seems to be a routine U.S. loner with a range of grudges against the world around him who jumped on the radical Islamic bandwagon after reading a few websites. At best it is too early to say what the motive was.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:22, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong No (and I think that's the first time in 3 years I've used the word "strong" in a !vote). This list, being almost entirely without context, should be limited to attacks specifically planned, manned, and/or financed by Islamic terrorist organizations (ISIL does not do that). No such link has been uncovered for Orlando, and not for lack of trying to find one. Mateen was a lone wolf with apparently a mix of motivations for his act, only one of which was propaganda he read on the Internet. It is unclear to what extent he subscribed to, or even understood, jihadist ideology. A witness said he said, "I'm just tired of your people killing my people in Iraq," and that sort of thing is an extremely thin connection to Islamic terrorism. Our readers do not benefit from a broad-brush interpretation of the words "Islamic terrorism". The predominance of reliable sources do not state unequivocally that this was Islamic terrorism, and we do not cherry-pick our sources. The most applicable policies are WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. If that's not enough, an effective counter to most of the RS arguments is simple: WP:ONUS. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:25, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
You've added the arbitrary requirement that lone wolf Islamist terrorist attacks cannot be included on this list. I don't see that restriction mentioned anywhere in the article and can imagine no justification for it. Do you have one? Same for the requirement that an attack cannot be included on the list unless it is determined there is only one motivation. If these are requirements, they should be spelled out in the main article: "List of Islamist terrorist attacks planned or carried out by more than one person, and in which the attacker had only one motivation." Once we do that, then we can create another article that includes ALL Islamist terrorist attacks.Dansan99 (talk) 01:32, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
You've added the arbitrary requirement that lone wolf Islamist terrorist attacks cannot be included on this list. Actually that is not an accurate characterization of my argument at all, on multiple points. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:44, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
I apologize if I misinterpreted your saying that the list "should be limited to attacks specifically planned, manned, and/or financed by Islamic terrorist organizations" as precluding lone wolf terrorists. Instead of spending additional time analyzing your statement, I'll just ask you: Do you believe that lone wolf Islamist terrorists should be automatically excluded from the list?Dansan99 (talk) 06:06, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
I reject the nuance-free premise that Mateen was a "lone wolf Islamic terrorist". I did not call him that, you distorted my argument by adding that. This is an example of straw man argument, something to be avoided. I suppose it would be worth debating separately whether a lone wolf who clearly understood and subscribed to jihadist ideology, and who was clearly motivated by that alone, should be included in this list, but that is not the question being decided in this particular RfC. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:13, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Whether or not he was a lone wolf Islamic terrorist is a separate question. I'm trying to establish a baseline of agreement on the requirements for inclusion of attacks in the list. Once there is agreement on that, it makes it easier to decide if this specific attack meets those requirements. It appears to me that the reason this discussion is so contentious is that we have not reached broad agreement on the requirements for inclusion in the list. One person way above used the first paragraph of the main article as a literal checklist of requirements. But, this immediately drew objections based on presumed requirements not in that list. Some examples that came up repeatedly were: 1. Should undirected, lone wolf attacks be included? 2. Should attacks with multiple motives be included? 3. Should attacks where the attacker has a confused understanding of his professed ideology be included? I think those decisions should be influenced by what reliable sources are saying. Once we decide the criteria, whether a particular attack fits is a separate discussion. But, whatever we decide this list is about should probably be included in the main article, so as not to create further confusion later on. In writing this, I've kind of concluded that this RfC is premature and will bow out of further discussion. When I have the time and energy, and if someone doesn't beat me to it, I'll start a separate topic or topics for discussing criteria for inclusion of attacks in the list.Dansan99 (talk) 08:08, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
I completely agree that this RfC is cart-before-horse if the developers of this article have failed to nail down the criteria for inclusion (which should have been the first discussion here). But it doesn't work to change an RfC's question and scope midstream. If it were up to me, which it is not, we would abort this RfC as a waste of time and start over with the criteria question (which would also need an RfC). Barring that, we have no choice but to answer the question for Orlando alone, per the RfC's question, and that result could obviously be superseded by a later criteria result. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:34, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
ISIL and AL Qaeda have had an explicit strategy of trying to recruit lone wolf terrorists for more than 2 years. Are you aware of this?http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/isis-official-calls-for-lone-wolf-attacks-in-us-and-europe-during-ramadan-a7042296.html http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/16/isis-promoting-lone-wolf-attacks-scheming-to-infil/ http://edition.cnn.com/2014/09/22/world/meast/isis-threatens-west/ Mrdthree (talk) 23:29, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
I do draw a distinction between direct recruitment and publishing propaganda on the Internet for anyone to read. The last sentence of the article's lead reads: "The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) said it found no links between ISIL and Mateen." At the core of this question is whether it better serves our readers to be less selective or more selective in this list, a list that is necessarily without nuance, explanation, or context. My feeling is more selective, and I perceive a desire, conscious or otherwise, to blame as much violence as possible on Islamic terrorism, making Wikipedia a political tool. You are entitled to disagree, and there is probably no "correct" answer to this question. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • No per WP:V. Most reliable sources have not made any conclusive statements because they can't. It is unknown whether Mateen committed the shooting to "further a perceived Islamic religious or political cause". Many sources speculate about other possible motives for the shooting, like homophobia, or anger about being exposed to HIV. Some sources say that Mateen may have been inspired by ISIL, but none that I have seen have unequivocally called the shooting an Islamist terrorist attack, so neither can we without committing original research.- MrX 01:46, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong Yes, Frankly, I'm dumbfounded that there is any controversy about this at all. We have reliable sources for all the following: Officials have repeatedly referred to it as a terrorist attack. The perpetrator himself, during the attack, pledged allegiance to an Islamist terrorist organization. That organization sent out messages specifically encouraging lone wolf terrorist attacks by their followers on soft targets such as this. Perpetrator had been investigated in past by FBI for Islamist statements. Perpetrator during the attack said it was to influence government policy on bombing in Middle East. Despite reports by others, the FBI has said their investigations have found no credible evidence of a gay double life (and it wouldn't necessarily matter anyway). The evidence in favor of Islamic Terrorism is simply overwhelming. I see nothing but speculation to the contrary. Some people seem to be asking for evidence of ISIS being aware of and specifically directing the attack. That is not a requirement for this to be an Islamist terrorist attack. As stated above, the evidence is that this was a lone wolf attack of the type explicitly encouraged by ISIS."Dansan99 (talk) 21:46, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
    You seem much more certain than the people officially investigating the shooting:

"Comey said Mateen's statements added "confusion" about his inspiration for the attack, because Mateen had expressed loyalty to Islamist groups and figures that are opposed to each other. "
— Los Angeles Times

""I cannot tell you definitively that we will ever narrow it down to one motivation," U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch said."
— CNN

"FBI Director James Comey said Monday that there was no evidence to indicate that Orlando mass shooter Omar Mateen was directed by an outside terror organization nor was he part of an international terror network."
— USA Today

- MrX 22:20, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
It's not at all unusual for a partisan to have a confused understanding of the group he is supporting. The question is what he believed (as indicated by what he said), not what makes sense to us. Besides, all the groups he declared allegiance to or affinity with are Islamist groups, so it doesn't change the answer to the question at hand. Regarding number of motivations, having one motivation is also not a requirement. We know he mentioned allegiance to an Islamist organization (he mentioned nothing else in the released transcript), and that's enough to make this list, even if secondary motivations are later determined. I already addressed the question of him being specifically directed by ISIS to carry out this particular attack. It's not a requirement. A lone wolf Islamist terrorist attack is still an Islamist terrorist attack.Dansan99 (talk) 00:37, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Is a vote space a place to argue? If so Quote 1 regards a statement Mateen made in 2013. Quote 2 is irrelevant as all Official agree a primary motivation was islamic extremism. Quote 3 makes a distinction between domestic and international terrorism, not islamic and other terrorismMrdthree (talk) 11:09, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
It's not a vote space; it's a discussion to try to determine consensus. Quote 1 is directly related to his "inspiration for the attack". Your comment about Quote 2 begs the question. Quote 3 doesn't make any distinction. It encompasses any outside terror organizations, which obviously includes Islamist terror organizations. It amplifies this by also stating that there is no evidence that he was part of "an international terror network". The only thing it leaves unanswered is whether Mateen's apparently independent actions were motivated by Islamist extremism for furtherance of a political or religious agenda. His dubious pledge of allegiance is insufficient for making such a conclusion in Wikipedia's voice.- MrX 12:28, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Its original research to claim that Quote 1 is in anyway related to the current attack. Please return to the article for context. Perhaps there are arguable elements in Q2 and Q3 but there is nothing dubious about his pledge of allegence to ISIS. It is an agreed fact. What you mean is that you doubt his capacity or honesty. However there is no record of insanity so his capacity is not at question. That means you doubt his honesty, correct? Mrdthree (talk) 11:16, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
"Its original research to claim that Quote 1 is in anyway related to the current attack". I guess you're saying the FBI Director used original research when he discussed Mateen's "inspiration for the attack". Our WP:OR policy does not extend to reliable sources. I don't have an opinion about Mateen's "honesty" or state of mind, but the FBI director and several sources obviously do.- MrX 13:20, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
OK I misunderstood the quote; I thought it was the 2013 reference. It is a reference to their current motivations. Here is Comeys statement about 'confusion': "During the calls he said he was doing this for the leader of ISIL, who he named and pledged loyalty to, but he also appeared to claim solidarity with the perpetrators of the Boston Marathon bombing, and solidarity with a Florida man who died as a suicide bomber in Syria for al Nusra Front, a group in conflict with Islamic State. The bombers at the Boston Marathon and the suicide bomber from Florida were not inspired by ISIL, which adds a little bit to the confusion about his motives. https://www.fbi.gov/news/speeches/update-on-orlando-terrorism-investigation Mrdthree (talk) 23:00, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
The solidarity he expressed was in calling them homeboys, which is hardly a pledge of allegence (as he did to ISIS)During one of the 911 calls between the operator and Omar Mir Seddique Mateen, Mateen made a reference to the Tsarnaev brothers by calling them his “homeboys.” At this point in time, all evidence collected to date shows no connection between Mateen and the Tsarnaev brothers."https://www.fbi.gov/boston/press-releases/2016/statement-from-special-agent-in-charge-harold-h.-shaw-regarding-omar-mir-seddique-mateens-reference-to-the-tsarnaev-brothers. Mrdthree (talk) 23:12, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Exactly, all those quotes above can be perfectly true and coexist with Mateen's extremist motivation. In fact, that has been the affirmative motive of the attack according to investigators, from the article I posted below: "He claimed the shooting was carried out in allegiance to the militant group Islamic State, as a message to halt U.S. bombing in Iraq and Syria." This isn't a "process of elimination" issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.233.156.49 (talk) 16:56, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
How much stronger evidence could there be than from the perpetrator's own lips?Dansan99 (talk) 00:42, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong Yes. I don't understand the argument that he may have had multiple motivations for the attack precluding the attack from being listed here; as long as one of the motivations was Islamist, then it ought to be included on this list and it certainly appears to be the main, if not only, motivation. I also don't see pledging allegiance to conflicting groups as an issue either since they are all, bottom line, Islamist groups or individuals. --Local hero talk 17:34, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  • No. There is evidence that Mateen had pledged allegiance to both ISIS and Hezbollah, two groups which happen to be fighting against each other in the Syrian Civil War. His political and religious ideologies are confused, and his motivations for the shooting remain unclear as established by reliable sources. OT, how long is this article going to get before it gets broken up? <> Alt lys er svunnet hen (talk) 04:25, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Here are sourced facts Omar Mateen pledged allegence to ISIS on the telephone and internet https://www.fbi.gov/tampa/press-releases/2016/investigative-update-regarding-pulse-nightclub-shooting. Mateen told his victims he was doing it to stop US bombing in Afghanistan/ISIL http://www.democracynow.org/2016/6/15/headlines/orlando_survivor_says_shooter_wanted_us_to_stop_bombing_afghanistan and he told police on the telephone he was doing it to stop US bombing in Afghanistan/ISIL http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-06-15/orlando-gunman-wanted-to-stop-us-bombing-afghanistan/7511586 and he posted the same motivations on facebook while the crime was in progress http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/stop-bombing-is-mateen-wrote-on-facebook/article8737808.ece. Official investigators and other press outlets discount gay revenge story http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-orlando-gay-fbi-20160623-snap-story.html, http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/authorities-no-evidence-orlando-shooter-omar-mateen-was-gay-20160624 Mrdthree (talk) 21:48, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
@Mrdthree: Unfortunately, none of these sources state that he is actually affliated with these organisations. If I declare allegiance to America before exploding a bomb vest, that doesn't make it an American terror attack (I'm not an American and have never visited, nor have I received support from the American government.) PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:23, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Of Course, YES - It would take some very strange reasoning not to include it. One of the reasons was radical Islamic belief. This is a slam dunk. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:59, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Definite Yes Same as San Bernardino, radicalized natural born turned Islamic homophobic terrorist. The FBI says claims he was gay are considered unsubstantiated. I don't care what nonsense Obama says about it and gun control, it's terrorism pure and simple especially considering his administration's been trying to scrub this fact from history as to partially censer recording of the calls the terrorist made. This shouldn't be up for debate when he's a Muslim extremist who has pledged allegiance to terrorist groups and states the political motive for the terrorist act.ShadowDragon343 (talk) 13:04, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong yes. It's absurd to armchair-quarterback Mateen's exact motivations, and claim that because there were more than one, he was not at least partially motivated by his religious views. In such cases, we should err on the side of what the perpetrator's own stated motivation was. And with making decisions that involve suicide, religious views are typically a stronger motivating factor than others (how much more likely is someone to die for the promise of an afterlife than they are because they're conflicted about their sexuality?!) I've no doubt that at least some of the 9/11 attackers had multiple reasons for their involvement, but there's sufficient evidence that they were at least significantly motivated by their religious views. So too with Mateen. This comment is particularly absurd: "There is evidence that Mateen had pledged allegiance to both ISIS and Hezbollah, two groups which happen to be fighting against each other in the Syrian Civil War". And what is the commonality among ISIL and Hezbollah? They're both Islamist groups. It's as ridiculous as claiming that because Osama bin Laden was Sunni Muslim who denounced Shiites, that he wasn't really an Islamist, because Shiites and Sunnis -- the two main sects of Islam -- are frequently in conflict. Bricology (talk) 19:24, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
And I would add that it's irrelevant whether or not Mateen was directed by, authorized by, trained by or in any other way directly involved with, any outside group. One doesn't need any external influences to be to kill because of their religious views. It's straightforward enough to find motivation from the ideology itself. Bricology (talk) 19:40, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  • NO. At least until confirmed by RS Most of !votes are are making arguments based on OR. It is basic policy that Wikipedia doesn't include material unless backed by multiple RS. The pertinent question is, do reliable sources commonly refer to this incident as a terrorist attack? If they do, then include it, if they don't then do not. Browsing news paper reports, it appears that they refer to it as the "Orlando shooting" or "Orlando attack", but not as "Orlando terrorism" or "Orlando terrorist attack". LK (talk) 02:49, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
    You've noticed that this list is only for Islamic terrorist attacks? There are other types of terrorism. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you just misspoke. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:26, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
    This makes my point even stronger. No RS has named the incident an Islamic terrorist attack. LK (talk) 09:26, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong Yes The man himself stated what his motivations were. ISIS claimed credit. All other criteria are met. Evan1975 (talk) 14:21, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong Yes I understand that points that this man may have been mentally ill and that this attack was not directed by ISIS, but those points are not relevant. ISIS intentionally targets those who are mentally ill, ISIS intentionally does not direct attacks in the United States where their communications can be intercepted, and ISIS intentionally congratulates and endorses lone gunman (or pairs/small groups) who attack in the United States. They intentionally release guides and propaganda encouraging these attacks to take place. Almost all Islamist terrorist attacks in the United States follow this same pattern. As far as a 'lack' of RS, the United States government has a vested interest in portraying ISIS as an organization with no physical presense in the United States and no support among American citizens and residents. The USA media protects the interests of the USA government. I don't think this is 'conspiratorial nonsense'. I would prefer if WP remained independent and did not become another arm of the USA propaganda machine. Brianbleakley (talk) 14:41, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong Yes: The list says "list of Islamist terrorist attacks," not "list of terrorist attacks perpetrated by Islamic terrorist organizations." Omar Mateen was Islamic, he committed a terror attack, therefore the Orlando shooting was a terror attack by an Islamist. Vektor00 (talk) 15:08, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong Yes: Of course yes. It's not up to Wikipedia editors to figure out how they can twist the facts around to somehow conclude that there's not clear evidence it was a terror attack. If there's significant doubt (which I don't think there is) you can at least say that it's *widely claimed* to be a terror attack by [huge list of news organizations around the world whom have reported it as such.] I don't think that's even necessary, however. He was a Muslim and committed an Islamic-motivated act of terror by even the most stringent definition of the word. 100DashSix (talk) 15:18, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
— 100DashSix (talk • contribs) has not made edits in 2 years but has resurrected to edit here. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:17, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong yes: Claims from the horses-mouth said are that he did it in accordance to his allegiance with ISIS and ISIS took credit. I don't care how prestigious and important a person's title is. Any third party investigators wanting to make sense of the attackers motivations, while ignoring statements made by the attacker, might as well just go home and twiddle their thumbs because they're doing nothing but wasting time.The Armchair General (talk) 15:27, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong yes: He pledged allegiance to ISIS and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, stated he was acting according to the will of Allah, and ISIS itself has claimed credit for the attack. Citations are too numerous to count. If this isn't an Islamic terror attack, nothing is. wikipedia's systemic bias is on full display in this ridiculous discussion. Jennyriarchi (talk) 15:41, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: Since this is picking up media coverage on Breitbart.com and User:MrX is getting criticized, let's look at what happened. During the hostage situation, Omar Mateen called 911 and made a Bay'ah (pledge of allegiance) to ISIL. This isn't in dispute, and it has appeared in numerous reliable sources. What is in dispute is whether anyone in ISIL had ever heard of Mateen prior to the attack, which now seems unlikely. Mateen's knowledge of radical Islamic ideology seems to have been acquired from websites and was thin and confused at best. Investigators have moved away from the theory that this was a planned attack by a terrorist organization, such as the Bataclan theater attack in Paris in November 2015.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:52, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
— Tim Riches (talk • contribs) has not made edits in 7 months but has resurrected to edit here. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:23, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
  • 'Emphatic Yes' This was clearly an attack motivated by and perpetrated by a fundamentalist Islamic agenda. If its in line with true Islamic beliefs or not, if it was coordinated with ISIS/ISIL/Daesh are irrelevant, Mateen believed he was acting within those confines. AdamJacobMuller (talk) 18:22, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
— AdamJacobMuller (talk • contribs) has not made edits in 4 years 10 months but has resurrected to edit here. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:23, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Not sure if this is just an automated bot, or whatever, but I'm obviously not a sock-puppet. I have a long history on Wikipedia (much longer than my absence which is primarily due to simply not having time to edit wikipedia anymore) and I obviously continue to use it extensively just not editing anymore. Moreover I'm using my real name for my account. I simply saw this issue and felt it was important enough to comment on as I would like Wikipedia to continue to be an agenda-free source of information. AdamJacobMuller (talk) 03:44, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong yes Until more evidence is released it is impossible to say whether this was an ISIL attack directed by the organization, however it is beyond doubt that, given the released statements made by the shooter during the attack, this was motivated by Islamism. 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. He then pledges allegiance to ISIL, a group that is widely recognized as committing violence in the name of its heretical brand of Islam. 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. As far as I am aware, the assailant knows the motive for his own attack and in this case the authorities themselves have released evidence that Mateen's motive was Islamist in nature. --Toomanyaccountsargh (talk) 18:54, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  • 'Yes' Back in 2013 he made inflammatory comments about radical islam to his colleagues. http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/orlando-nightclub-massacre/terror-hate-what-motivated-orlando-nightclub-shooter-n590496 Fangfufu (talk) 18:56, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  • 'Strong Yes' A man claims to be an Islamic soldier. Kills people while claiming his support for Islamic terrorist groups. Somehow this isn't islamic terrorism. What the absolute hell is wrong with the world when you look at a duck and call it a chicken? Sethyre (talk) 19:03, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes Even IF the shooter also had homophobic motives, does NOT suddenly make his public allegiance to ISIS void. The simple fact is that he claimed a clear as can be a connection to an Islamic terrorist group, and that that group also acknowledged him as 'one of theirs'. It is bizarre that some Wikipedians are trying to fall back on 'no reliable sources', when everyone knows full well that it is purely a matter of time before 'reliable sources' will acknowledge that this fits the criteria for a Islamist terrorist attack. The fact that this attack could also fit the criteria for a different kind of (lone wolf) terrorism does not matter one bit. It does not suddenly invalidate the ISIS connections. It simply makes the situation more complex. But it HAS to be listed as an Islamist terrorist attack as well. Omegastar (talk) 19:35, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong Yes There is insufficient evidence to state that it was an ISIS attack, but there is sufficient evidence to state it was an Islamist terrorist attack. The shooter specifically stated on a 911 call during the shootings that he pledged allegiance to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi of the Islamic State, and made multiple other references to Islam. Patpend (talk) 19:42, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
— Patpend (talk • contribs) has not made edits in 6 months but has resurrected to edit here. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:23, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong yes: The attacker swore his allegiance to the Islamic State. There is little doubt, based on RS-provided evidence, that he had some sort of religious-linked political motivations. However, these doubts are not relevant to the criteria outlined for this article. Nuke (talk) 19:50, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes for reasons stated by others. Mateen declared Islamic motives and whether he was motivated by homophobia and/or self-hatred is ultimately irrelevant. --DrCruse (talk) 19:54, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  • 'Strong Yes' There has been no evidence of homosexual tendencies by Omar Mateen. The FBI has said that it has found nothing to show that Mateen was on gay dating apps with any of the 20 email addresses they had for him and consider the claim of a man having participated in homosexual activities with Mateen to not be credible. That combined with his pledge of allegiance to ISIS should be enough. If the shooter had called the police and and said he was Napoleon, obviously no one would blame the French, but if the shooter had pledged his allegiance to Hitler's ideals or said he was committing these acts in the name of God there would be no dispute of whether or not the attack was a white supremacist or a Christian extremist attack, respectively. We wouldn't say that we have to prove he was either a member of the SS or a Catholic priest in order to call it what it is. Why is Islamic extremism treated differently? [1][2]
  • Strong Yes: Wikipedia is not a place to argue what should be included in history, it is to document it. The attacker was Islamic and this was a terrorist attack. It passes the logic of being an Islamist terrorist attack at face value. I count at least 20 other attacks done by similar "lone" attackers on this list that do not have definite ties to a RS approved Islamist Terrorist organization. If this attack is not included, editors MUST remove those other attacks. Which is obviously obsurd. The fact that there is this much discussion is a reminder to the Wikipedia community that it is under attack by bad actors trying to rewrite history. We can not stand for this as unbiased editors. Iksnyrk (talk) 20:03, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Obvious Yes The sourcing is quite clear. Arkon (talk) 20:06, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong Yes: I am disappointed by some of the arguments here from what sound like very smart people. The list is titled "List of Islamist terrorist attacks," not "List of ISIL terrorist attacks." Similarly, when you look at Christian terrorism like the Wisconsin Sikh Temple massacre, I would label it as such even though the Catholic Church or Southern Baptist Convention or the United Methodist Church neither ordered nor condoned the attacks. No religion can boast a perfect record, and as such, each needs to be called out on the issues when an attack is inspired by its ideology. True, homophobia was clearly a factor in Mateen's motive; each Abrahamic faith condemns homosexuality to some degree of another (Leviticus 20:13, Abu Dawud 4462). Furthermore, as a Christian, I see the church constantly struggle with these matters, as I have wrestled them in my own mind as well. Mateen is definitively a virulent homophobe according to his father's words; however, he was also driven by an ideology that necessitates the killing of homosexuals, among other groups. Many other arguments of mine have been enumerated here, and as such I will conclude by saying this: when we refuse to call an apple an apple, we run the risk of permitting what Orwell termed "the ministry of truth." Jrcoyne99 (talk) 20:07, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
— Jrcoyne99 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:17, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Just for the record, I have contributed to other articles before including historical topics, politics, and science fiction. I created an account specifically for this discussion. Also, someone's argument or point of view is not invalidated simply because expressing it is their first acti or one of few on the platform. It's just that for some of us this is an important matter. Jrcoyne99 (talk) 02:27, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
— Tills (talk • contribs) has not made edits in 11 months but has resurrected to edit here. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:17, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
So what's the purpose for posting this? Is my opinion not relevant since I'm no longer an active editor? TillsTalk 05:56, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
It's the same as marking WP:SPAs. Given the canvassing occurring via Breitbart, such info can be useful to the closing admin when considering comments. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:01, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes The list consist of terror attacks committed by Islamic extremists. Omar was an Islamic extremist, so surely the event should be added to the list. CoverMyIP (talk) 20:34, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
— CoverMyIP (talk • contribs) has not made edits in 8 months but has resurrected to edit here. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:17, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
What's your point? Sleeper accounts may not have made edits for a very long time but that doesn't indicate they are inactive nor does it mean their treatment or rights are of any less significance than others. Let's not derail the discussion, please. My input is just as significant as yours and anybody else's.CoverMyIP (talk) 21:34, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
— Singleiron (talk • contribs) has not made edits in 7 months but has resurrected to edit here. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:23, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes - Meets the criteria for inclusion: It has been widely reported as a terrorist attack, the perpetrator identified himself as an Islamic soldier to further a perceived Islamic religious or political cause (tell America to stop bombing Syria and Iraq and that is why he was “out here right now.”)-- Isaidnoway (talk) 21:26, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  • No. Imputing "Islamic motivation" to the Orlando shooter reminds me of the semi-hysterical tendency in the 1950s and 1960s to attribute all kinds of problems to Communist subversion. Comment below. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:32, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong Yes: I can't believe this is up for debate. Strong yes in agreement with all others' arguments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.164.94.198 (talk • contribs)
  • Yes: We have multiple reliable sources which state that he pledged his allegiance to ISIS (an Islamist terrorist group) and mentioned the Boston Marathon bombers in a phone call to authorities. It was a terrorist attack, again as attested by multiple reliable sources, including the US government (President Obama himself called it such). It meets all the criteria for inclusion on this list. Titanium Dragon (talk) 23:40, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
    @Titanium Dragon: The title of this article is not List of terrorist attacks. If the US government or Obama have unequivocally labeled Orlando an Islamic terrorist attack, could you provide a link to that? ―Mandruss ☎ 23:57, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
    @Mandruss:: "So whatever the motivations of the killer, whatever influences led him down the path of violence and terror, whatever propaganda he was consuming from ISIL and al Qaeda, this was an act of terrorism but it was also an act of hate." Per [1]. Obama does not use the term Islamist in relation to ISIS/ISIL/Islamic State or Al Qaeda for propaganda reasons, as he has noted previously: "We are not at war with Islam. We are at war with people who have perverted Islam," Obama said during remarks at a summit on combating violent extremism in February. "These terrorists are desperate for legitimacy. And all of us have a responsibility to refute the notion that groups like ISIL somehow represent Islam, because that is a falsehood that embraces the terrorist narrative." Per [2]. However, ISIS and Al Qaeda are undoubtedly Islamist groups, and are defined as such by Wikipedia and innumerable sources, and he himself acknowledges it as a perversion of Islam. Given that the perpetrator declared his allegiance to the Islamic State, and the attacks were driven by his Islamist beliefs, as supported by many sources provided, including the FBI's own transcript of the call, there's really no room for doubt from the RSs. Titanium Dragon (talk) 01:56, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong Yes The FBI, CNN, and CBS all stated the same thing. End of discussion. R00b07 (talk) 23:42, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes Mateen clearly was an Islamist terrorist and stated as much in his 911 call. His support of other islamist terror is well established in reliable sources. His association with ISIL is more questionable but his islamist terror connection is not. Self-radicalized terrorism is still terrorism. --DHeyward (talk) 23:50, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  • No. Maybe he was gay. Maybe he was just a schizophrenic who escaped everyone's notice until it was too late. Maybe he actually was a jihadist. But on something this raw, something so high-profile, something being used as political ammunition so readily by non-victims, it seems imprudent to slap an "Islamist terrorist attack" tag on it and call it a day when errors in reporting tend to be accompanied by widely-ignored and slightly discreet retractions, if there are any at all. And since we are the 'de facto' source for so much of the English-speaking world, it is imperative that we make no mistake on the accuracy of this. There is no WP:DEADLINE. I urge that it be not added, as if it is added in error, more people stand to lose, to be hurt, to be discriminated against, than if it were to be added later, when the smoke has cleared and tempers cooled, without error, if at all. Dschslava Δx parlez moi 00:05, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
    • FBI investigation already concluded that he was not gay. You can't do a mental examination postmortem so you can't call him crazy. Wikipedia is supposed to be about truth, and not about political correctness. The evidence is overwhelming that it was an Islamic terrorist attack. He flat out said he did it in the name of Islam.Avangion (talk) 20:31, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Why stop with your speculation there? Maybe he was angry about the Treaty of Ghent, or the cancellation of Firefly. Who can say? If we're willing to go so far as to ignore the terrorist's own statements on the matter, we might as well just make up anything we please. 2601:602:9802:99B2:F1DB:D95B:C7B2:2EE0 (talk) 04:55, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Then we should probably rename the page to "List of Islamist terrorist attacks by clinically-sane heterosexuals." What difference does it make if he was gay or schizophrenic? He's still an Islamist, he still committed an act of terror, so doesn't that make the shooting an Islamist terror attack? The term "Islamist terrorist attack" is the most accurate term we could possibly use to describe this event, and it really seems like you're saying we should put a hypothetical person's feelings above factual accuracy. Vektor00 (talk) 03:04, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
I'll reply to both of the IPs' comments here, for brevity's sake. I never said that it should never be added. I never said that it should either. The key part of my reasoning is I urge that it be not added, as if it is added in error, more people stand to lose, to be hurt, to be discriminated against, than if it were to be added later, when the smoke has cleared and tempers cooled, without error, if at all. Seeing as the markedly increased activity present in part caused by certain media attention is certainly not working in anyone's favor, I'm advising that we leave it alone for now and come back later when, say, all this furor has dissipated. To do otherwise could cause even more media attention, resulting in scores more flocking to this RfC with politically motivated reasons blatant and not-so-blatant, which is the exact opposite of what we want. Look at the problems that we are facing right now, in comparison. Dschslava Δx parlez moi 06:38, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
"I urge that it be not added, as if it is added in error, more people stand to lose, to be hurt, to be discriminated against, than if it were to be added later, when the smoke has cleared and tempers cooled" The purpose of Wikipedia is not to eliminate discrimination or protect people's feelings, noble as those causes are; the purpose of Wikipedia is to disseminate accurate information. Whether or not such accurate information causes discrimination or hurt is completely irrelevant. 2601:602:9802:99B2:F1DB:D95B:C7B2:2EE0 (talk) 06:47, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
I am fully aware of that. Perhaps I shouldn't have included that part; it's not really part of my argument anyways. The bolded part, however, is. This is a huge mess, and I have half a mind to file another ANI thread while at it. Who knows, maybe we'll all be dragged to ARBCOM. Dschslava Δx parlez moi 07:03, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Since he pledged allegiance to ISIS, how about we look at that as a small, minor, potential motivation for killing 50 gay people? Maybe, just maybe? R00b07 (talk) 00:23, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Rb00b7, I'm very sure that I addressed that in my original !vote already. Dschslava Δx parlez moi 00:38, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Rb00b7? That is the most subtle insult ever. R00b07 (talk) 01:43, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
R00b07, I'm sorry. My eyes got crossed with those number-letter lookalikes. No harm intended. Actually, how about WP:AGF, seeing as you espouse it so prominently on your userpage? Dschslava Δx parlez moi 04:59, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
I was assuming Good Faith, just making a bad joke. Sorry R00b07 (talk) 06:04, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes I can't believe we're even arguing this. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:42, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes Mateen connected the attack to ISIS. (Of course there are also other dimensions.) Jason from nyc (talk) 02:08, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes: I tend not to get involved in political arguments, as pop culture and other less-sensitive subjects are more my specialty. However, with the evidence available at the present time from credible sources, I find that it is fairly clear that the Orlando attack should be included in the list. Of course, Islamic terrorism may not have been the sole cause for the attack, but it certainly appears to have been an ingredient. -- Matthew - (talk · userpage · contributions) 05:49, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong Yes: Not only do we have the killer's own statement, but cited sources from the FBI, CNN and a ton of other places that overwhelmingly qualify as WP:RS. This attack has more reliable sources supporting this claim than pretty much any other attack on this list. The fact that this is even up for debate is asinine and shows a ridiculous bias by some editors here seemingly desperate to defend the good name of Islamic terrorism. --TheTruthiness (talk) 07:55, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong Yes: For reasons cited by others. Briefly, killer cited allegiance to ISIS but more importantly, but more importantly, the entity in question has an explicit policy of encouraging and inciting such individual actions and has, similarly, explicitly taken credit. Muldrake (talk)
  • Yes per sourced statements from FBI and others. Really a no brainer here. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:28, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes If the FBI and CNN says so. They are reliable sources. Supergodzilla2090 (talk) 18:03, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong Yes: A muslim man shot up a nightclub under the pretense of Radical Islam. ISIL later took credit for it. Who cares if it was carried out on ISIL's instruction or not? ISIL has sent messages to Extremists in the US and other western countries to continue carrying out LONE WOLF attacks. ISIL can't personally endorse each and every attempted bombing. They only take credit once the deed is done. The Orlando shooting was one of these encouraged lone wolf attacks, and while ISIL didn't plan it, they certainly took credit. We would be disrespecting the deceased victims names if we don't include this as Islamic Terror. Battlefront228 (talk) 19:39, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong Yes This is an open and shut case. Agree with the comments above: he said it was radical Islam and ISIL took credit for it. Nothing more needs to be said.Avangion (talk) 20:31, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment The Western Left is uncomfortable labelling domestic attacks as "Islamic terrorism". You'll notice that only these domestic attacks are considered controversial . No one has any problem with adding Islamic Attacks from other nations. Thus, not including the Orlando attack would be violating WP:NPOV and including a political bias into Wikipedia. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:18, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Absolutely. I have not seen a single removal of vaguely sourced attacks in the Middle Eastern world, yet Orlamdo (which has been properly sourced dozens of times) is scrubbed. A clear violation of WP:NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by R00b07 (talk • contribs) 03:56, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
How long have you been following this article, R00b07? A few hours? Maybe a day or two? Please review the article history and the talk page archive before you make a fool of yourself again. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:08, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Nice Ad Hominem. Attacking my character will do only so much to further your argument. I never attacked your character, so don't attack mine . Also, domestic issues are paid attention to on a far greater scale than international ones. I have looked at the Talk Page and Article History, BTW R00b07 (talk) 04:42, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong Yes: A self-proclaimed ISIS sympathizer, reported to the FBI on multiple occasions, kills dozens of people and injures dozens more...and we're debating if it had anything to do with Islamic terrorism? Have we lost our minds? I don't buy into the far-right narrative that says Wikipedia is a liberal thinktank...but this is sure playing into that. I challenge anything vote "no" to explain what could Omar Marteen have said or done, over what he already did, to convince you this was an Islamic terror attack? If you can't think of an answer, or have to go to great lengths to invent one, then consider you're letting your bias control you. Occam's razor makes this pretty simple... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceran (talk • contribs) 18:14, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

— Ceran (talk • contribs) has not made edits in 11 months but has resurrected to edit here. Dschslava Δx parlez moi 04:57, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

    • Wikipedia has an obvious bias to the left. That this is even under debate is absurd, and clearly part of a liberal ideology to avoid associating Islam with terror and violence. Now that you've seen, look at other political issues on Wikipedia with new eyes. 24.218.115.184 (talk) 19:51, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Remember to WP:AGF or you will get in trouble. R00b07 (talk) 02:08, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong Yes: The act itself is an act of terrorism. This much is undisputed. Omar was a Muslim. This much is undisputed. We have official recordings and transcripts from Reliable Sources (911, police, district atty) of Omar pledging allegiance to ISIL. This is also undisputed. To say that this act of muslim terror is somehow excused because there is a rumor Omar was gay is simply against all common sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.172.138.138 (talk • contribs) 14:22, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong Yes: ISIS said they planned Orlando with Mateen and dedicated a video to claiming and praising him; Omar Mateen claimed ISIS and dedicated his attack to ISIS. The FBI have said the proof points to an Islamic attack. Omar's father, a radical Muslim cleric, has openly denounced the USA. The fact that many editors here say National Review or Breitbart are not credible sources is ridiculous and shows a willful blindness to good journalism on the right while not holding those same impossibly high standards to journalism on the left. Cyberpunkas (talk) 06:06, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
— Cyberpunkas (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:09, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
@EvergreenFir:New users are reliable as well. The closing admin should take note at the unfair double standard being imposed by people who do not think Orlando was an Islamic attack. Cyberpunkas (talk) 06:59, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
There's a distinct difference between a new user and an SPA, do you intend to contribute anywhere at any time except for here? There is no double standard, EvergreenFir would tag an SPA regardless of their position. @Cyberpunkas: also do you mind signing the above comment, I don't think Sinebot will get to it. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:55, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
@Mr rnddude:Double standard was in reference to blatantly playing down the FBI and outright dismissal of conservative news. Not an SPA, always edited anonymously and now that I have an account, will continue to contribute. Cyberpunkas (talk) 06:59, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Good, I hope to see you improve other articles once this is finished, and thanks for clarifying what you meant by double standard, I thought you were referring to the tagging of SPAs. Right now, due to your limited known contributions (since anonymous ones aren't recorded on your account) you'll just have to bear having the label. Sorry. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:04, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
The issue is WP:CANVASSing and vote stacking. This is not a vote. If new users have compelling arguments based on policy and guidelines (and not expressions of personal opinion) that I'm sure the closing admin will consider those. But the horde of randos and new users who were bought here by the Breitbart article cannot be ignored or dismissed. As for conservative news, if it's WP:RS it can be used. But much of what I think you're referring to (e.g. Breitbart) is not. Bloomberg News, The Economist, those are conservative news outlets that are RS. FWIW, we don't cite DemocracyNow or BeingLiberal or ThinkProgress or whatever the left equivalent would be. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 07:57, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Please, the reason you are making a big deal is because of the conservative viewpoints being espoused; new users and even SPAs have a lot of insights to add. New experts and contributors are on par and often better than existing ones in many cases. And Breitbart is a credible news source. It adheres to all the academic journalism standards with actual reporting and fact checking whereas BeingLiberal or ThinkProgress are editorials and blogs. Your standard is biased and unfair. Cyberpunkas (talk) 17:17, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Our standard is that set forth by Wikipedia's guidelines and our sources are those that fit that standard, where that standard is not met, we do something about it. We take no sides, when there are opposing sides we request consensus. The above, which some are calling a failure of the system, is exactly how the system is supposed to work. Wikipedia is a permanent work in progress, this means that things will change regularly and forever. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:02, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Please do not speak for all editors. You are clearly taking a side by singling out conservative news journals and comparing them with liberal editorials and blogs. I agree we need consensus but such condescending dismissal of conservative sources begets a liberal bias that is unfair and do not follow Wikipedia's guidelines of objectively vetting sources. Cyberpunkas (talk) 21:40, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Funny you should say that Cyberpunkas, I haven't voted, I have taken no sides, and I haven't singled out anything except poor arguments or poor sources. I see some good arguments from both sides, I see some poor arguments from both sides, that is all. Also, you may want to defer to EvergreenFir about conservative and liberal editorials and blogs, since I never brought them up. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:50, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
In that case my apologies I mistook your earlier comments as an indicate you agreed with others here that Breitbart and other conservative outlets are not reliable even though they fact check, have journalistic standards appropriate in the industry, etc. Cyberpunkas (talk) 21:56, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
@Cyberpunkas: Do not case aspersions or presume to know my intentions. My issue is the canvassing. There's nothing inherently conservative about claiming the events were Islamist terrorism. You can laim Breitbart is RS until you're blue in the fact, but the archives on WP:RSN show that most editors here disagree. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:12, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
That page shows that some editors disagree and some editors agree. Saying that Breitbart is uncontested as a unreliable source just proves my point about the bias here. The FBI even came out and said it was an ISIS attack. But again I've given reasons why Breitbart is reliable; and you are entitled to your opinion that it is not. Finally Breitbart never canvassed, it was just reporting. Cyberpunkas (talk) 22:20, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
It is effectively canvassing. It's happened before too. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:49, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes The fact that we are discussing this shows some of the fundamental flaws in Wikipedia (much as I love it) that are disappointing. We are not required to give both sides equal time, this isn't a 24 hour news program where 1 outlier who believes aliens gave us technology gets to debate 1 professor who says they didn't. The terrorist left a claim, it's been reported many times, there should be no dispute - and yet - here we are :sigh:. BHC (talk) 20:37, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
The above !vote by BHC was moved by me to be in the correct place, they moved it before but somehow it ended up at the bottom of the discussion page, will strike the comment. Hope nobody minds, thank you. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:15, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong Yes. What more would the killer have to do to be seen as a terrorist? He pledged allegiance to a terrorist group during the attack for Allah's sake. I wonder if the people arguing against the inclusion would be opposed to someone who pledged allegiance to the KKK, during an attack which killed dozens, being called a white supremacist? Would you still look deeper then for a motivation; maybe the KKK allegiance was just a front for the real meaning? Maybe it was a metaphor? Zaostao (talk) 00:09, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Nobody, bar nobody, is contesting the idea that it is terrorism. What's being contested here is the label of Islamist terrorism. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:22, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
So you're agreeing with the terrorist description of ISIL and the shooter by extension, but are against the Islamist definition? Zaostao (talk) 00:39, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
I personally have no stake here, I only wanted to correct the misconception. That said, the problem some of the No voters are having is the lack of a definition for Islamist in this sort of situation. Islamist refers to organizations and individuals of those organizations, ISIS is Islamist but there's nothing to indicate that ISIS had any prior involvement with Omar before the attack. How to ascribe Omar's attack to ISIS if they didn't actually get involved. Is it to the point of being ridiculous, yeah actually its getting there, but, nothing to do till the RfC is closed. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:45, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes. I see the problem of making a definitive statement when we don't have a court ruling, but the solution will be to see how experts on terrorism/mass murders categorize it. My impresion is that terror researchers regard this as a lone wolf ISIS inspired attack, mixed with more personal motives. See article from a scholar at the bipartisan Brookings Institue. Iselilja (talk) 21:56, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes. If a person with a dick identifies as a woman, we respect her wishes and describe her as female. Omar Mateen pledged allegiance to an Islamist organization, which was confirmed by multiple reliable sources. SSTflyer 05:47, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
No It was a mass shooting and though the media choses to conflate these with acts of terrorism, anyone who knows basic international law will tell you this was not an act of terrorism by the strictest legal definition. We may concede that the Orlando shooting has been handled by the media as though it were an act of terrorism. According to 18 U.S. Code § 2331, terrorism (domestic or international) has not occurred unless the perpetrator's intent was to either:

"(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"

Yes, I know that's not the full criteria, but the other two (A and C from [this link) were met; however, all criteria must be met in order for the Orlando Shooting to constitute an act of terrorism.As far as we can tell, he may have just wanted to kill some people as opposed to intimidating/coercing the civilian population, influencing the government, or affecting its conduct. We can all conjecture as to his intent, but we may likely never know. With that being said, the fact is we cannot prove his intent could have been anything other than to simply kill. I know he pleged himself to ISIS, but unless some document stating his specific reason as to the act he committed, we will not be able to properly and accurately describe him as a terrorist.

P.S. This is strictly a legal interpretation, so if we have to play dumb and call him a terrorist just because CNN (which, by the way, NEVER gets it wrong) calls him a terrorist then so be it. Psychotic Spartan 123 16:55, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I would point out that our criteria for including incidents in this list has been that reliable sources describe the incident as a terrorist attack and describe it as Islamist or attribute it to a known Islamist organization (without using the word Islamist). To discourage original research, we don't use "textbook definitions" of terrorism. If the news media is dumb—and I'm not going to argue that they're not—so is much of Wikipedia, because I would guesstimate that 80% or more of our articles rely on them. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:09, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
I guess you're right. I usually stay confined to the history section and there I shall remain. I'll let the people who know more about the inner workings of these kind of articles sort this out. Also, I know I placed the comment in the wrong section here, but my internet is just so slow right now that I have to wait several seconds just to see what Iám typing. Cheers! Psychotic Spartan 123 17:19, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
I have moved this comment thread to the appropriate voting section. I hope you two don't mind, PsychoticSpartan123Malik Shabazz. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes. The gunman claimed allegience to ISIS and ISIS claimed the attack. The media reported this as an Islamist attack. Maybe it's true that ISIS is over-claiming attacks and the media is letting them get away with it, but wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. ~ Rob13Talk 21:53, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Call for WP:SNOW close

Could someone (preferably someone with experience closing contentious RfCs and no strong feeling on the issue at hand) please apply WP:SNOW and close this RfC? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:46, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

There is no SNOW here. Articulate arguments have been made on both sides. That said, consensus is not about numbers, and I can't imagine that there are any significant new arguments to be made, so I wouldn't oppose an early close. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:54, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Agree. Guy Macon, this got flooded by Breitbart readers. Just because a ton of people showed up today to !vote yes doesn't mean there's consensus. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:18, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) This is not a WP:SNOW, and even less so because there are serious WP:CANVASSING issues raised by the Breitbart article, and the fact that this seems to have blown up with new and dormant accounts after it was published.
I would oppose an early close. I don't care which way it goes, but I think it's a serious WP:POV issue to rush to a conclusion after another website makes a decision on what they think WP should say, and apparently sends a mob here. It's not going to be the end of the world if this sits for a day or two. TimothyJosephWood 23:23, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Withdraw my non-opposition to early close, pending a resolution at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#More eyes on List of Islamist terrorist attacks. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:31, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
We don't run an RfC for 8 days, and then quickly close the RfC after multiple sleeper accounts have been canvased by a radical right wing blog. - MrX 23:30, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Doesn't canvassing require people to specifically be asked to change the content? I have read the article in question and it does not call anyone to come here and edit it. http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/06/30/wikipedia-removes-orlando-shooting-islamist-terror-attack-list/ Avangion (talk) 23:25, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. Just like we didn't close it even earlier when more of the radical left wings were saying no. We let it run it's course like most RfC's. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:44, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Staying open simply to accumulate more "me too" !votes is counter to the principle that consensus is not about numbers. If you can show evidence that a large number of "radical left wing" !votes are from single-purpose accounts solicited from off-wiki, please do. Barring that, you have presented a false equivalence. Anyway, if it's true that it's not about numbers, I don't know that the Breitbart invasion can do much damage. Hopefully the closer will have the wisdom to look beyond the numbers and, to the extent they consider them at all, will also look at the !voters' contribs. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:01, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
I'd say there's little hope in gauging a consensus until the sleepers go back to sleep. I wouldn't even bother arguing the point until tomorrow. Partisan arguments will only encourage those brought here for partisan reasons. TimothyJosephWood 01:44, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Those that are here for partisan reasons were here before the article even came out. In my opinion, that's why the articles were written in the first place. R00b07 (talk) 01:48, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
The accounts you dismiss as "sleepers" appear to be more cognizant—or more able to find sources for their arguments—than many of the no voters, who have relied upon now superseded evidence about "gay lovers" and a particularly bizarre argument about aliens. That users are attempting to blithely dismiss the yes cohort as "canvased by radical right wing blog" seems to suggest a number of accounts on the no side have an agenda just as transparent. As far as I'm concerned, any doubts over motive could have been mentioned in the description of the attack, and if the no vote succeeds then there will appear to be a false consensus, which will be argued over endlessly by users citing a significant number of quality sources to support the inclusion of the attack. --Toomanyaccountsargh (talk) 05:49, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
It's funny you should mention that; I took the time to go back through the entire RFC (and indeed this talk page X_x) to examine the argument from the side of the nays - and except for some quotes from MrX in an early statement above there actually isn't a single linked piece of evidence from any RS to rebut the statement "The Orlando shooting was a terrorist display of Islamic Fundamentalism." The quotes from MrX are wrong in twofold; one from early in the case when information was scarce and motivation unclear, and another stating that Mateen was not a full member of a terror organization - which while apparently true does not mean this wasn't a Islamist terror attack (you don't need to join ISIL to kill for Islam). Every single other argument I can find is either completely OR or a statement of neutrality or confusion over motivations, quote possibly due to editors not having read the new official FBI information. Just to sum this up cogently; there isn't a single Wiki-essentials based argument as to the nays here, and very much many for the ayes with all the requisite sources and weight. EDIT: Or rather, no new information to rebut the ayes. There's plenty of older articles and sources that ponder and report on several rumors and fallacies that have been stated officially by the FBI as false as of this point, which I don't feel bear repeating or applying due to the new given information - unless someone wants to make a case that the original rumor mills are more reliable and weighty then the recent official FBI releases and the news coverage thereof? 69.114.53.16 (talk) 06:22, 1 July [3]2016 (UTC)

There is only one way this RfC is going to turn out. Better to cut the drama and close it right now. Even if you remove the "sleepers", there are plenty of other Yes votes. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 07:18, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

There is a risk that following Breitbart getting its panties in a bunch over this, the article is going to exactly what Omar Mateen wanted, which is to describe the work of a deranged loner who wanted attention as an Islamic terrorist attack.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:24, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
See, I have a problem with that reasoning - it's completely unsubstantiated OR. There's no problem with editors believing that, but that's not a Wiki-appropriate argument towards nay (though it's been repeated a few times). Mateen himself, the FBI, news organizations reporting on the FBI findings and plenty of talking head quotes all agree that this was indeed an Islamist terrorist attack. Even regardless of whether or not Mateen wanted it as such, it still clearly fulfills those stipulations both as an event and as a Wikipedia article that should be listed here, due to weight and sources. It's been great that people were protecting this page when everything was fuzzy as I said below (this is 69.114.53.16, bit the bullet made an account) but clearly things have changed. To continue and deny this to be listed as an Islamist attack without several supporting RS's - following the new information beyond the rumor mills - would be very strange, in my opinion. SpeakerOfReason (talk) 07:38, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
As I've said over at Talk:2016 Orlando nightclub shooting, many people are making the assumption that Mateen was of sound mind when he carried out the attack. He may or may not have been legally insane, but there are numerous reports that he was mentally unstable and had expressed hatred of gays etc. This makes the motive less clear cut than a straightforward terrorist attack. The problem with categories and lists is that they do not allow for any nuances and end up with a false dichotomy (black/white, yes/no) when things are more complicated than this simplistic version.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:42, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
And I completely agree with everything you just said personally; the dismantling of our mental health care system and the silence of America on the topic is horrendous as a general point of information - but that doesn't apply to Wikipedia. I'm of the opinion that anyone who decides to bomb/shoot a crowd of people is most definitely not of sound mind; but not being all there mentally doesn't mean he wasn't doing it for Islam as well. Having mental health issues and being a terrorist aren't mutually exclusive, and while reports speaking of his mental health are also important information there's a huge amount of weight of sources also claiming as fact that he was an Islamist terrorist. Almost nothing in life is straightforward, and the same could be said about any bomber/shooter on this list as well as Mateen. None of this precludes the Orlando shooting from being added to this list, and anyone who reads that article (whether found through the list or otherwise) will be able to attain the more detailed information that surrounds it. Speaking of working on the Orlando article, I don't know if the sources quoted all around were actually taken from the Orlando page or if they're new but all the stuff linked around would be helpful to mine for it, if they weren't there already - just in case anyone was interested and hadn't considered it. SpeakerOfReason (talk) 07:56, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
While RS is essential, it is not everything. WP:ONUS: While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. I'd suggest that the yeas stop implying that nays, established editors in good standing, are policy-ignorant bozos and/or POV zealots. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:57, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
No, I've totally been on your side in regards to protecting the article (and never did/meant to call anyone a POV zealot - unless you aren't referring to me?), but things have changed with more recent information - specifically the FBI statements and news/talking head coverage of. WP:DUE and WP:WEIGHT, and I'd say the weight of discussion here and the due of the new information makes it pretty clear this is information starkly relevant and necessary for the article regarding it - the side effect of which ends up with the article being listed here, due to RS's attributing and confirming Islamist motivations. The fact that there is a large conflict of information at all from the rumor mills beforehand and the new information now is pretty important as well - I've said several times that that article is rife for a subsection specifically on that subject - but there's every reason (from onus, due, and weight) that the information should be included, and no Wikipedia reason it should not. SpeakerOfReason (be gentle!) 08:27, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
No, I wasn't referring to you. But I question the value of more circular discussion, which is accomplishing little but creating more for the closer to read. I've stated my argument as concisely as I can in my !vote (updating it as my thinking has crystalized), and I'm going to try to sit it out from here on. I wouldn't presume to insist that others do the same, but I hope most of them will. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:37, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
I mean I totally understand your point of view on the matter with regards to how closely we define acts of terror in context with links to actual terror groups - I think if there's even the slightest reason why the Orlando shooting shouldn't be on this list, it would be yours - I just don't think we can quibble regarding the details when there's so many places in the new information where "Islamic/Islamist Terrorist" is confirmed by RS. I just don't agree completely with your point because this isn't a list of "Official Terrorist Group Attacks" but "List of Islamist terrorist attacks" and sole gunman/bombers (in that context) should qualify. SpeakerOfReason (be gentle!) 08:46, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
I get it. I understand and respect your position. But the point of an RfC is to convince the closer, not each other. I have VERY rarely seen an editor change their mind as a result of RfC discussion, and the majority of those few times it was me. Ergo, extended discussion is largely a waste of time, and I've felt this way in every long RfC I've ever seen. We convince the closer, or not, mostly in our !votes and perhaps a bit of discussion immediately following them. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:55, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

See discussion here. Further comments can be added below. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 00:44, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I have left a message on the talk page here. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 15:53, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment - The info regarding Mateen's alleged lover is currently just a rumor and a claim made by one person (to the best of my knowledge). We cannot treat it as anything but that. Should investigators corroborate that he was indeed his lover, that would be different. But afaik, we don't have that corroboration yet. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:24, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
    Right. It's about as credible as ISIL taking credit for the shooting.- MrX 01:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
A more cogent point I have yet to see regarding this travesty. Thank you, MrX. <> Alt lys er svunnet hen (talk) 08:51, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
It is important to bear in mind that the authorities have had a significant rethink about the motives since the first 24 hours after the shooting. Immediately afterwards, it seemed plausible that this was a rerun of the Bataclan theatre shooting. While the Orlando shooting was similar in its style, Omar Mateen was a lot like previous U.S. mass shooters and may have added radical Islam into the mix after reading some online propaganda material. He may have been trying to big it up when all he really wanted was notoriety, like many previous mass shooters.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 04:57, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Let's say this is true; does this automatically mean that the fact he claimed allegiance to the Islamic terrorist groups null and void? Are we to dismiss the fact he said "I'm committing these acts in the name of Islam"? (not actual quote but you get what I mean) I'd argue that it's just more information on top of what we already know, which is that this is an self-described Islamic terrorist attack. New evidence does not make it any more or less of a terrorist attack. Sethyre (talk) 19:24, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
To further what Sethyre has said, Mateen claimed it as an Islamic attack himself - to the authorities directly, disregarding the other supporting facts - the Islamic terror group in question claimed responsibility (or more pertinent perhaps, their approval) and the FBI themselves, primary authorities investigating the matter, also stated it was driven at least in large part by Mateens Islamic beliefs. Many reliable sources - repeatedly quoted and linked in different places in this RfC - have quoted this language directly, and several even reporting it in their own voices. Regardless of statements of "confusion" made by third parties and other talking heads, is not any form of action other then directly recording the news and these statements (perhaps with a conflict section specifically on this matter, if such is still opined by others as somehow incorrect with good sources) given their weight on this issue anything more then OR or POV? As I stated in the edit request further down, I don't normally comment on Wikipedia, and as such shall remain an IP - whether you feel that takes credibility away from my reasoning or not is up to you, but the reporting on this case is pretty clear cut from where I'm sitting. 69.114.53.16 (talk) 20:33, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
It is completely irrelevant whether or not he also had other motives for his attack - many Islamist terrorist attacks are also hate crimes, or are enacted to gain revenge for some real or imagined slight. The fact that he actively pledged allegiance to ISIS, had a history of sympathizing with radical Islamist beliefs, that the US government has agreed that his Islamist beliefs played a role in the attack, and that ISIS took credit for it all points towards it being an Islamist attack. If he had other motives as well, that doesn't change the fact that he still belongs on this list. Titanium Dragon (talk) 23:47, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
If other attacks on this page have been listed for just the attacker pledging their allegiance to Islamist groups, what is the reasoning for not allowing the Orlando Shooting on the list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:40d:8100:e810::2 (talk • contribs)
Have these theoretical extra-terrestiral aliens promoted lone wolf attacks, and have they acknowledged the actions of this person? In other words, your strawman is bunk. 206.190.75.9 (talk) 23:41, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
To copy from below: 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 person "pledging allegiance to aliens" and of no relevance to the motive for the attack. --Toomanyaccountsargh (talk) 05:31, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
If we had a list of "Terrorist attacks by UFO conspiracy theorists", yeah, we'd include him on that list. It is irrelevant whether or not the guy is a member of ISIS, though; this is about Islamist terrorist attacks, not ISIS terrorist attacks. Titanium Dragon (talk) 23:42, 30 June 2016 (UTC)


I disagree. There is more evidence that 9/11 wasn't an Islamist attack when compared to Orlando. Bin Laden originally stated he didn't do it. He retracted his statements, and CIA and FBI intel makes it undeniable that Bin Laden caused 9/11.

Meanwhile, The Orlando shooter made his motives clear from day 1. R00b07 (talk) 23:54, 30 June 2016 (UTC)


I also don't care what Breitbart said. A fact is a fact. He pledged allegiance to ISIS. That's like if during the Troubles someone pledged allegiance to the IRA and shot British people. It's clear what the motive is. If Breitbart said 2+2=4 would we change it just to spite Breitbart? R00b07 (talk) 00:06, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

That is the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard (on this page so far). "He said it, therefore it is", no sir, the motivations are not clear and that's why we're having this discussion. I could pledge allegiance to Black Lives Matter and go on a rampage against the white community, that doesn't necessarily mean that that was my real motive. Maybe I just don't care anymore or am actually a psycho. The point is, you don't know his motivations, we don't know his motivations, we only know what sources are suggesting are his motivations and what he has claimed are his motivations. There's reason to believe that he's covering up his real motivations, and that's why we're discussing this. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:12, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
we only know what sources are suggesting are his motivations and what he has claimed are his motivations. And that's all we need to know to include, list, and edit articles on subjects for Wikipedia - indeed, that's all we're allowed to use when doing such. We report NPOV what the reliable sources say, which in this case the shooter himself, the FBI investigating and releasing information and the news organizations consequently writing articles about those findings all qualify as such. Going further is OR and it definitely wouldn't be the first, or last article on Wikipedia that; for reasons of credibility, NPOV, and BLP - isn't allowed to dig deeper into mysterious motivations when we have due weight sources not reporting on them to any effective degree. 69.114.53.16 (talk) 00:27, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
You are quite correct, and the predominance of reliable sources do not state unequivocally (the appropriate bar for a list that is without explanation or context) that this was an Islamic terrorist attack. The original research is to place it in this list based on the ambiguous connections that have been made. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:31, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
The reliable sources are still out on the discussion (is he islamist, gay, schizophrenic, etc). The investigation is still going on, when the investigation ends, when we have undeniable/conclusive evidence, we'll make the report. The point being, we are not reporting anything until we have substantiated facts. Reporting nothing fits well within NPOV, reporting something controversial not so much. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:32, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
You're both correct that there is conflict between news services regarding exactly what Mateen's motivations are, and there are just as many that don't state it was Islamic terrorism in their own voice and quote others who also refuse to label it as such - but there's also many places that do (plenty of which are linked around the RFC above). While the news services are still bumbling around this and perhaps need to be taken with a grain of salt - or two - I'd posit that the statements made by Mateen himself and the information and conclusions so far discussed and released by the FBI are perhaps at this moment, until given evidence otherwise, more weighty themselves - and these are sources that unequivocally do include the attack under Islamic fundamentalism. I did suggest earlier in one of the edit requests that perhaps the best result for now would be to include the Orlando shooting in this list, but also add a strong conflict subsection explaining the currently ongoing nature of the case and the disputation of facts currently presented, focusing on refuting the possible Islamic involvement in such. 69.114.53.16 (talk) 00:52, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
"and there are just as many that don't state it was Islamic terrorism in their own voice " Can I have a list of those sources? I'm really curious on who states that. R00b07 (talk) 02:00, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
There's several up above (most famously MrX's response near the top) but take heed - I'm not saying they definitively stated it was not an Islamic attack, but that they didn't state it was, or at the very least offered quotes saying the same and avoiding the issue in their own words entirely. Which, in contrast - to me, anyway - lends more credence and weight to the official statements from the FBI as they have definitively stated a conclusion as far as Mateen's motivations go (and aligning with Mateen's statements) while the news organizations opposed to this are making no claims other than a paraphrased "We can't know for sure!" which is a definitive cloud of nebulous indecision and without any sort of supported substantiated evidence - unlike the FBI. 69.114.53.16 (talk) 02:25, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Anyone saying it wasn't an Islamic attack is being intentionally dishonest. Right, we're all just ISIL sleeper agents, placed in the West and raised as Westerners to represent jihadism at en-Wikipedia. Or, just maybe, we have a different viewpoint from you as to the proper use of a list that is devoid of explanation or context. I'd suggest you have a read of WP:AGF and avoid any further such comments. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:13, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
This is the most ironic comment I have ever seen, as it was assumed that I was in bad faith. Also, do you have a more logical reason why he did what he did?R00b07 (talk) 01:20, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
There is a substantial lack of irony in the comment, there is no strawman just a bit of sarcasm. The point being delivered is that we have differing opinions to you, there is controversy surrounding the motives of the attacker and so some of us are opposed to their inclusion in this article. It's quite that simple. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:26, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Sub comment; A more logical reason? you realize that we're discussing human motives, the epitomy of the illogical (slight hyperbole as it were). I can suggest other reasons (logical or otherwise); his religious beliefs conflicting with his own self (this does not mean a connection with the Daesh), shame for his own sexuality, schizophrenia (mentioned somewhere above, wasn't even aware of it to be honest), delusions and so forth. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:31, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
If that's the case, I honestly and seriously recommend making a List of Schizophreniac attacks, and adding the Orlando shooting to it.R00b07 (talk) 01:36, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
For clarity, I'm not saying it is or isn't, only suggesting that it could be, and because it could be, that qualifies the argument that ISIL inspired attack might not be, because it might not be, we shouldn't include it in this article until we can qualify that it is or isn't. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:40, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm not stating that ISIL caused the attack. This isn't a list of ISIL attacks. What every major news outlet (CBS, NBC, ABC, and hell before the FBI censored the phone call) reported was that the Orlando Massacre was an Islamic Terror attack. If we can't classify it as an Islamic Terror Attack, what are we going to classify it as instead? Because removing the Massacre and not giving a new place would be not good. R00b07 (talk) 01:56, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Must everything be placed into a nice, simple category? Is that what we're here for, to encourage simple-minded worldviews, sort of like Hollywood movies? I hope not. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:49, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, everything should be placed into an appropriate list. If it doesn't fit one list, it should fit into another. I thought the point of Wikipedia was to "collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally". R00b07 (talk) 01:59, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Key words; "appropriate list", this might not be the appropriate list, we might not have a list that is appropriate, we might not need one. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:01, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough, good point. R00b07 (talk) 02:17, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, everything should be placed into an appropriate list. Strongly disagree, for the reason I stated. But I'm open to seeing the Wikipedia policy or guideline that says that. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:04, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
(("But I'm open to seeing the Wikipedia policy or guideline that says that.")) It's not a guideline, it's common sense that if Wikipedia's mission is to "collect and develop educational content" and "to disseminate it effectively and globally", that having attacks in an organized list makes it easier to collect and share to the public. But I'm open to seeing something instead of an organized list that would better "disseminate it effectively and globally". R00b07 (talk) 02:17, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
COMMON REASONThis user believes that "common sense" is a worthless delusion and prefers to argue using reason.
―Mandruss ☎ 02:26, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Regardless if it's common sense or reason, my point remains and you haven't addressed it. R00b07 (talk) 02:28, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Well there's no addressing the logical long-jump from "collect and develop educational content", and "to disseminate it effectively and globally", to "include Orlando in a list of Islamic terrorism attacks". So I won't try to. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:31, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
You seem to be missing my point. I NEVER SAID that "collect and develop educational content" and "to disseminate it effectively and globally" means that you must "include Orlando in a list of Islamic terrorism attacks". I said that "having attacks in an organized list makes it easier to collect and share to the public" and that's what Wikipedia is all about. Adding Orlando to the list of attacks should only be done if there are enough sources, and the sources have been laid out a million times. I can provide links to the sources if you want. R00b07 (talk) 02:44, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
We are beyond circular argument here, so I refer you to my !vote and previous comments for my response. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:15, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
All I did was respond to your claim of the "logical long-jump" and responded to it. How is that in any way a circular argument? R00b07 (talk) 19:41, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Per WP:AGF, do not accuse others of being intentionally dishonest (your words, no "straw man" there) without clear evidence. The only reason we're not at WP:ANI now is that you didn't make the accusation against a specific editor (but that line could be moved if you persist). ―Mandruss ☎ 01:27, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Edited my comment per WP:AGF. Also, I understand that being passive aggressive is allowed. R00b07 (talk) 01:32, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't think your comment about the strawman was the issue being addressed by Mandruss, rather the insinuation that we're all being "intentionally dishonest" because we disagree. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:35, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Edited my comment per WP:AGF. R00b07 (talk) 01:39, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

We do know how to use the outdent template, right? I've applied it here for legibility reasons, by the way. I've also eliminated unnecessary indentations. Tell me if you feel I've made a mistake. Dschslava Δx parlez moi 06:25, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Obama said that "So whatever the motivations of the killer, whatever influences led him down the path of violence and terror, whatever propaganda he was consuming from ISIL and al Qaeda, this was an act of terrorism but it was also an act of hate." per [3]
  • The FBI released a transcript of the attacker's phone call to 911 that included him pledging allegiance to ISIS and identifying himself as an Islamic soldier: [4]
  • Reuters notes the shooter expressed support for multiple Islamist groups, and the FBI said that he pledged his support to Islamist extremists and referred to him being radicalized: [5]
  • Hillary Clinton referred to it as "radical Islamism": [6] Donald Trump did as well.

That's the terrorist himself, the president, both of the major presidential candidates, the FBI, and Reuters all referring to him pledging allegience to an Islamist group, being an Islamist, radicalization, radical islamism, it being a terrorist attack, ect. What exactly are people complaining about here? Wikipedia itself classifies ISIS/ISIL/Islamic State as an Islamist group. Titanium Dragon (talk) 02:14, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. You have created a separate section for your argument, it being obviously more important than the rest. Can the rest of us do that, resulting in over a hundred !vote subsections? ―Mandruss ☎ 02:19, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Why do you feel the need to be hostile in order to make your point? Remember to WP:AGF. WP:ANI applies to everyone. Maybe he is new and made a new section because he doesn't know any better. Assume Good Faith. R00b07 (talk) 02:25, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Holy crap, why are people SO ADAMANT on keeping the Orlando shooting off the list? It's like people are trying to avoid coming to terms with reality, and the more evidence and arguments FOR keeping it on the list pop up, the more frustrated and angry they get. Just look at the comment in response to this, it's completely avoiding the point and instead attacks Titanium Dragon for making a separate space. Sethyre (talk) 02:30, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
("Holy crap, why are people SO ADAMANT on keeping the Orlando shooting off the list?") You know why. ;) But yeah, it's sad when people who speak against the stream get replied with sarcastic comments. (Assume Good Faith doesn't work here, since it was already admitted)R00b07 (talk) 02:33, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Holy crap, why are people SO ADAMANT on keeping the Orlando shooting off the list? If you actually don't understand the arguments, you haven't read much of them. I understand it's a ton of reading, but it beats endless redundant repetition. And speaking only for myself, I'm neither frustrated nor angry, although I do object to a separate subsection for the argument that could have been made in a !vote. It's the same reasoning as is applied to extensive use of boldfacing or underscoring. If no one else shares that view, fine. I'm capable of deferring to consensus on this as much as anything else. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:48, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Let's dissect this one again. "If you actually don't understand the arguments, you haven't read much of them." I'm assuming you mean well by this comment, but it's really hard to. To me it seems like another insult. R00b07 (talk) 02:53, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Given the wall-of-text effect, it's anything but an insult to suggest that someone may not have read much of it. Being a very slow reader, I am myself forced to skip much of that when I arrive at an RfC late, and I wouldn't feel insulted if someone pointed that out to me after I had implied that I don't understand the opposition's arguments. My comments are clearly not in violation of AGF, so I'd ask that you take any further discussion about my tone to my talk page. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:59, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
    • When Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, (I know not reliable sources, just making a point) CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, and The FBI (Reliable Sources) agree that the motivation was Islamic Terror, that sounds like a consensus to me. However, somehow the argument manages to devolve into talks about schizophrenia and self hatred. R00b07 (talk) 02:25, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
      • I personally have no stakes in this, I only care that we wait until either we have unequivocal evidence of such (which seems to be well documented above) or that we come to a consensus. I mentioned the alternate arguments because I'd noted them in some places. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:37, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
        • The thing that is confusing me is that we have a ton of reliable sources, and people are talking about extraterrestrials and stuff. Wikipedia relies on reliable sources and WP:COMMONNAME to name/identify stuff. Given that there seem to be an overwhelming number of RSes aligned on this point, I'm not sure what the argument is really about at this point. What else could we possibly be looking for? When the terrorist, a terrorist group, the US government, a variety of news sources, and competing presidential candidates all agree on something, it seems like that's about as much agreement as you can reasonably hope for. Titanium Dragon (talk) 04:23, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
          • What you're essentially saying (correct me if I'm wrong) is that the arguments for inclusion are clearly stronger than those against. If you're right, any competent closer will see that and close in your favor. A new separate subsection doesn't get us any closer to that end, and only serves to give undue emphasis to your argument—and create yet more redundancy for the closer to slog through. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:37, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
            • Yelling at people to shut up does not actually reduce the volume in the room, you know. 2601:602:9802:99B2:F1DB:D95B:C7B2:2EE0 (talk) 05:04, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
              • @Mandruss: I was hoping for an explanation of why we should disregard all of those sources and not list it as an Islamist terrorist attack. Wikipedia isn't about voting, its about consensus, and I'm trying to understand what it is that you disagree with here. MrX's original objection was simply that there weren't sources which said that this was an Islamist terrorist attack, but it is clear that there are tons of such sources, so I was wondering if there was some other objection. If there isn't, there's not much of a point to any of this. The only other argument I'm seeing is people speculating that he was gay, but we don't know that he was, and in any case, there's nothing that prevents an Islamist from being gay. There have been many instances of conservatives who were very strongly opposed to homosexuality due to their religious beliefs themselves being homosexual, so it isn't really a counter-argument - doubly so given that the shooter told the police themselves that they were acting on behalf of ISIS (whether ISIS knew about it or not). Titanium Dragon (talk) 05:35, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
                • It's a wonder that there's a RfC at all. There's far more attacks that have vauger connections to Islam than the Orlando shooting, so why is THIS PARTICULAR event so contested here on Wikipedia? And what does it say about Wikipedia in general if things like this continue to happen despite clear evidence that it isn't necessary? Sethyre (talk) 05:41, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
                  • I don't believe that this particularly says anything about Wikipedia in general, beyond possibly a few tendentious editors - I mean, let's be clear here, the series of events were extremely muddled and conflicting information tossed all about originally and the very points against the Orlando's inclusion as an Islamic attack were well applied at that point. It is however fair (and safe) at this point to say this has changed. All the more recent information (news articles/FBI/talking heads) have given full and due weight to the information that yes; indeed - this attack was a demonstration of Islamic fundamentalism. The editors who have up to this point protected this article (and it's inclusion to this list) in the meantime have done well by doing so, and deserve every chance to review all the new articles and sources (posted here and any in an edit request below) and see the well given preponderance of statements towards real, supported information - and the dismissal of several fallacies formerly involved too. Now, if people choose to keep ignoring all of this then perhaps it would be time to wail about the stubborn mules and the Wikipedia stables - but the time hasn't precisely come yet, and always assume in good faith that people can come around. 69.114.53.16 (talk) 06:06, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
                • The arguments against inclusion are more than "there weren't sources which said that this was an Islamist terrorist attack". They have been stated multiple times by multiple editors with multiple ways of saying them, and often with others apparently failing to hear them or hearing them inaccurately and/or simplistically. I'm sorry but it seems both impractical and a waste of time to try to fully articulate them here, again. They are there for you to read, or maybe someone else would care to take a stab at a full and complete re-statement of them. Update: On second thought, I doubt any one editor could fully and accurately summarize all of the nay arguments. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:53, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
  • The 2015 Leytonstone tube station attack was another of those attacks that people raced to include in this list, for many of the same reasons people want to include Orlando. The Leytonstone attacker shouted Islamic phrases, so it must have been an Islamist attack, right?! Oh, no, wait now... Nope. Mentally ill man. We'll never know for definite now whether Mateen was mentally ill or not, but being the U.S., he had access to much more significant weaponry. Certainly, from people who knew him (as opposed to FBI examinations of his phone), he apparently appeared to be mentally unstable and his sexual orientation was open to question. Sorry if that doesn't fit in to some black and white Breitbart classification. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:45, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
But mental illness doesn't preclude an attack for any type of classification. Neither does sexual orientation. Is the list called "List of attacks by Heterosexual, Mentally Stable Islamists"? No. I'm not a doctor, but I would guess that Omar Mateen, Dylan Roof, the Leytonstone attacker, and Ted Kaczynski were all mentally unstable. But these attackers all chose to intentionally identify with a polical ideology and associate their attacks with some ideology. If Omar Mateen supports ISIS because ISIS gives him publicity, which he craves for psychopathological reasons (this is plausible, but also very speculative), that does not make him less of a supporter of ISIS. Consider a hypothetical fighter who has joined ISIS to gain money or slaves as spoils of war but has little interest in religion. Would that man not be a "real" supporter of ISIS? I think many of you who support removing this attack from the list are talking past us. The issue isn't that Mateen might have been gay, or might have been crazy, and that we Breitbart drones fail to recognize that. The issue is that we cannot understand how any of those complicating factor make Mateen not an ISIS supporter. Should we have a separate list for terrorist attacks made by ISIS supporters, that support the religous and political aims of ISIS (killing of gays and Americans), yet potentially had other motives? Well guess what- that would include every single attack on this list, including those actually directed by ISIS and Al-Qida. Should we remove 9/11 from this list? Maybe one or more of the hijackers went through a rough divorce, flunked out of school, had a brain tumor, etc, etc, etc. Who cares? This is honestly getting absurd. Brianbleakley (talk | contrib)) 17:45, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes The fact that we are discussing this shows some of the fundamental flaws in Wikipedia (much as I love it) that are disappointing. We are not required to give both sides equal time, this isn't a 24 hour news program where 1 outlier who believes aliens gave us technology gets to debate 1 professor who says they didn't. The terrorist left a claim, it's been reported many times, there should be no dispute - and yet - here we are :sigh:. BHC (talk) 20:37, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Hope you don't mind but I'll move the comment for you, two sections seem to have fused so adding your comment to the bottom of the correct section unfortunately puts it in the discussion section. Will fix. I have pinged you so you should see the change I made when you log-in. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:06, 2 July 2016 (UTC)


So, how is this discussion working out? Has some sort of agreement or decision been made yet on what to do?--Stikman (talk) 15:04, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

The standard for an RFC is 30 days, when dissent is so widespread. I don't believe any amount of new evidence will sway the vote towards yes anymore then it already does (and with all the sources it really really already does) so it's likely we'll either be awaiting the 30 days for a close/decision, or the standard for inclusion on this list - currently being discussed below - will come to a conclusion and render this entire discussion moot. My honest bet is on the standard for inclusion. SpeakerOfReason (be gentle!) 19:00, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
  • NY Times now lists Orlando attack on their list of ISIS terror attacks. It's actually a list format like this article. [7]. It is now overwhelming. So much so that I am unaware of any sources that dispute it. It's becoming a SYNTH and OR problem to deny inclusion which appears to be not based on reliable sources but editor opinion. --DHeyward (talk) 04:43, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Second call for close

It is obvious that, rightly or wrongly, a significant number of the disputants are unwilling to accept the result. Therefore, Wikipedia:Snowball clause applies: this issue does not have a snowball's chance in hell of being resolved by this RfC. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:24, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Endorse per my comments below. It is also unneccessary due to recent sourcing improvements mentioned by User:DHeyward. Mr Ernie (talk) 22:31, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support I was opposed to including the Orlando attack in the days after the attack, but now the consensus among Wikipedia editors who are self-proclaimed experts reliable sources seems solid. I don't see any point in prolonging this discussion. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:02, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - We don't run an RfC for 11 days and then quickly close the RfC after multiple sleeper accounts have been canvased. See also WP:NOTAVOTE and WP:STEAM.- MrX 23:14, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - There have been enough reliable sources agreeing on this that there are really no legitimate counterarguments left. 2601:602:9802:99B2:B4FA:4965:6831:C637 (talk) 01:37, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Breaking news events have evolving sources. We aren't being "canvassed" by a news source (it's not even possible from WP:CANVAS), we are being ridiculed by it. There are simply no sources denying it is Islamist terrorism and virtually all sources mention it. We are supposed to take the latest available sources for news events and one of the most recent sources is the NY Times list just like this article and Orlando is on the list[8]. --DHeyward (talk) 02:24, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support, but also Support a rework of the article structure as has been proposed elsewhere. In the meantime, it seems appropriate. The fault lies not in our sources but in the criteria. TimothyJosephWood 02:49, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support WP:SNOW close and rework per Timothyjosephwood. Dschslava Δx parlez moi 03:01, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support For the same reason as DHeyward. The new NY Times source makes it clear that the discussion is over. The result is obvious. R00b07 (talk) 04:27, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Point of order - The proposer is misinterpreting WP:CONSENSUS, which states: "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue". Obviously no involved editors can make that assessment, which is why we have outside closers. Sorry, we just don't say, "The yeas are clearly right because they have a substantial majority"; that's not what WP:SNOW means.
    a significant number of the disputants are unwilling to accept the result - There is no result until the RfC is closed, so what result is the proposer referring to? Consensus is not about numbers, so they can't be referring to that.
    The question of whether to request an outside closer early is debatable, but it's at least a legitimate proposition. This is not. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:53, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Fascinating! I have been very careful to completely avoid giving my opinion on the content dispute, avoid giving my opinion as to what the actual consensus is, and have never expressed an opinion as to who should close this RfC, yet multiple editors act as if I have done those things. It is interesting how some people see what they expect to see even when it doesn't exist. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Maybe you misstated your proposal. WP:SNOW by definition precludes a closer, but you refer to one now. SNOW close means agreeing that we can dispense with the rest of the process including the closer (if it's a process that normally requires a closer). ―Mandruss ☎ 05:21, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Maybe you misstated my proposal I have been editing for ten years now and this is the first time I have heard the claim that "WP:SNOW by definition precludes a closer". I cannot find this alleged definition anywhere in that essay, and I believe that by posting a call for close (as opposed to simply snow closing it myself, which would be technically allowed under WP:SNOW but not appropriate here) I was implying an uninvolved closer. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:16, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
A SNOW proposal is to close early with a certain result (in this case, a pass of the RfC), not simply to close early. I have supported the latter in my !vote below. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:13, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't know where you got "in this case, a pass of the RfC", but it certainly wasn't from anything I wrote. Some editors have expressed the opinion that it should be closed as a fail due to campaigning. I have not expressed any opinion on whether those editors are right or wrong. Again, please stop stuffing words in my mouth and claiming that I have taken positions when I have not done so. If fact, from now on I suggest that you not make any claim regarding what I did or did not say unless you have an exact quote and a diff to back it up -- you pretty much get it wrong every time. Your current behavior is disruptive and must stop. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:06, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Your current behavior is disruptive and must stop. Your blustering is wasted on me. Loud and aggressive attempt to intimidate people is what's disruptive (and destructive), not calm discussion that you happen to disagree with. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:35, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Can I get some clarity? Is the 2nd call for close currently legit or not? Thanks. R00b07 (talk) 06:12, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
It's a legitimate proposal if it's a call to request an early closer, but not if it proposes to pass the RfC, sans closer, because the Yes position is so strong. The proposer (and one !voter) referred to SNOW and, unless I'm seriously off-base (which I won't rule out completely), SNOW means the latter of the two. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:20, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Again, the phrase "if it proposes to pass the RfC, sans closer" stuffs words in my mouth. I carefully avoided expressing either of the two most common opinions I see on this page ("the yes position has consensus" and "the no position has consensus after certain comments are disallowed") and I find it really annoying that you appear to assume without evidence that I have a position. I do not. I have no opinion on this rather boring content dispute other than my standard opinion that we should follow consensus. I have no opinion on the question of disallowing some or all comments -- I have not studied the arguments as a good closer should do. Please respond to what I actually write instead of what you assume I must mean. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:16, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Don't misuse the word SNOW, and you will not be misunderstood. A SNOW proposal is to close early with a certain result (in this case, a pass of the RfC), not simply to close early. Asserting SNOW in this case is to say that the obvious outcome is pass, and that is far from obvious. I have supported an early close in my !vote below. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:17, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Evidence, please. Please quote the exact wording of WP:SNOW that you think supports your assertion that "Asserting SNOW in this case is to say that the obvious outcome is pass". Stop putting words in my mouth. Your current behavior is disruptive and must stop. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:06, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. If I may ask one more annoying question, would the recent legitimate sources (Most notably the New York Times calling it an Islamist attack) be enough of a reason to not only argue for a "Support" position, but to argue for an early close for the RfC, based on Wikipedia's guidelines for Consensus? Thanks again. R00b07 (talk) 06:28, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
I'll assume that by "early close" you mean request a closer early (before the normal 30 days). In my opinion no amount of sources would warrant an early close. In my view, the only potential reason to close early is that there are unlikely to be any new arguments or viewpoints, and, since consensus is not about numbers, there is no point in staying open just to accumulate more "me too" !votes (on either side).
That said, many editors appear to believe that consensus is in fact about numbers, regardless of what the policy says, and even some closers seem to give numbers a lot of weight (politically, it's hard to rule against the majority). So I think there's something of a gap between policy and practice here, and it's a gap that we should work to close. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:35, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
...and some editors think that other editors appear to believe that consensus is in fact about numbers in situations where there is zero evidence to support that conclusion. I certainly don't think that, and I challenge you to produce a diff where I implied otherwise. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:16, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Guy, if we're going to make this a pissing match, I challenge you to produce a diff where I said that it was you I was referring to in that comment. Please respond to what I actually write instead of what you assume I must mean.—Guy Macon. In any case, I'm fully prepared to concede your superior pissing ability. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:37, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm not arguing against you, but I want to make myself crystal clear, I was arguing consensus based on the conclusive and relevant sources, as well as a lack of reutation of the sources, not the numbers of people saying yes or no. Just thought that was relevant to bring up, considering you mentioned users that assumed consensus was some exercise in democracy. R00b07 (talk) 07:35, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
I hear you suggesting that we might reach a consensus on whether the RfC has reached a consensus—and what that consensus is—and I'm saying that's not how the process works. Obviously the majority is going to self-validate in such a scenario, every time, which is precisely why we don't do it. Call it avoiding a fox-guarding-henhouse situation, separation of powers, or whatever you like, it's just logic. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:43, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
What? I don't understand your response. My whole point about consensus is that it is based on arguments and sources, not the number of yes votes or no votes. Can you please explain how that is an incorrect interpretation of consensus? R00b07 (talk) 08:02, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm saying that, in a process that normally has a closer to determine consensus, it is not for any of us to usurp that responsibility. I'm saying again that the majority cannot decide that it has made its case, as it could never be neutral or objective about that. To reiterate/clarify, I'm only talking about the SNOW pass proposition, and it's not even clear that's what the proposition is here. If the proposal is to request an early closer, this entire subthread is moot. See my !vote below. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:09, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
  • We are not a bureaucracy. If the only argument for not including it is that it's against an arbitrarily imposed deadline for some process that is not serving the encyclopedia, then the RfC is a moot time waster and should be closed. The nature of understanding is more cohesive and coherent than it was when the RfC started and is reflected in the latest, highest quality sources. Add the material and evaluate whether it should be removed if there is a desire to keep the RfC open but material is reliably sourced to Islamic terrorism in multiple, high quality sources without any substantial refutation. --DHeyward (talk) 07:21, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support admin review - weariness aside, I think a review by an admin is not being reason. I suppose I'm more in favor of a review with the possibility of the conclusion being to leave it open longer. The 30 day standard makes sense for most articles, but for current events that's an eternity. In this case, that norm hinders creation of an accurate and current encyclopedia, so I'd appeal to IAR. The nature of the sources' dialogue has changed and I think an evaluation of the present state is a decent idea. Again, though, if the reviewer thinks closure is premature, that's a perfectly acceptable outcome. Fwiw, my !vote of ambivalent remains unchanged. For those unsatisfied any eventual close, remember can always change the page if new, unambiguous information emerges the course the investigation. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:58, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support: Per my reasoning in the previous call to close this. The 30 day is just a common-sense guideline, nothing more. The consensus here is so obvious that it is meaningless to prolong it. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 07:05, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support requesting a closer now, since there are unlikely to be any new arguments or viewpoints. Relative strength of positions is irrelevant to this question. A WP:SNOW pass would not be a legitimate proposition in this situation, for the reasons I expressed above, so I won't use the word Oppose for that. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:29, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support requesting a closer now, per Mandruss (WP:SNOW just doesn't apply here); and support reworking the article as suggested elsewhere to avoid similar messes in the future. There needs to be a mechanism or resolution such that incidents like the 2015 Leytonstone tube station attack, or the "attack" on a Paris school that turned out to be a hoax can be properly excluded. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 08:30, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
There is a mechanism, the undo button. While not official policy, keep in mind WP:NODEADLINE. We are not WikiNews and if something turns out to be hoax, we can fix it. Hopefully that didn't sound antagonistic. R00b07 (talk) 08:44, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
It didn't :-) But the personal attacks (not from you!) when one hits the undo button while quoting policy, do. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:12, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
@Bastun: I don't see how that particular thing warrants an entire rewrite of the article. If someone is personally attacking or harassing you, or if a user is using racist or racially charged terms...., file an WP:ANI against them. Even if it's an IP, most VPNs are blocked from editing Wikipedia, and if it's a "real" IP, that IP can be extensively banned. If after all that, and personal attacks are still not resolved, it's not the article's fault, but rather Wikipedia's. But from my experience, thick skin goes a long way, even when someone calls you something really offensive. R00b07 (talk) 18:17, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
How is that relevant? Whatever Brietbart might or might not do doesn't cancel out the numerous non-Brietbart sources calling this an Islamist terror attack. 2601:602:9802:99B2:316A:DBE1:9B79:D5D1 (talk) 19:54, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. Breitbart raised attention of this article, sure, but as long as reasoned logic, as well as relevant and accurate sources are used, there should be no problem. I can't believe I had to say that for the millionth time. R00b07 (talk) 18:06, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
If you read the vote stacking article you will notice this was not vote stacking. Editors were not selectively notified by a news article. Any and all readers of that news article are more than welcome to contribute. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:09, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
The readership of that outlet is not a general audience though. Let's not pretend Breitbart has a wide audience. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 15:52, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Regardless of the wide or narrow audience, shifting the focus onto where the new Wikipedia editors come from is irrelevant. Judge the arguments they make based on their merit, but don't base them simply because they came from the "wrong" place. If Breitbart readers are extremely biased and misinformed, and they have no sources or logic, it should only take two seconds to shut them down via sources, arguments, and consensus. If they are breaking the rules, it should only take two seconds to shut them down by pointing to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. R00b07 (talk) 18:31, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
You have stated the Wikipedia ideal (as I have in some of my comments in this area). Per that ideal, a given rationale or argument should never have to be !voted more than once; if we saw an existing !vote that accurately stated our position, we just wouldn't !vote; what would be the point? Others look at the reality that numbers do in fact play a very large part in judging consensus. My feeling is that it does not serve Wikipedia's goals when Wikipedia's content policies play second fiddle to one's political bias, and those policies aren't learned with a few hours of editing experience. RfCs are not petitions. It's easy for someone who knows almost nothing about Wikipedia editing to come in and !vote by parroting an existing argument to satisfy Wikipedia's requirement for one. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:23, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
While we're on this subject, why are we letting slews of new accounts !vote on something so politically sensitive on Wikipedia? Dschslava Δx parlez moi 01:57, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
My understanding is that current policy gives us no choice. I wonder how the Breitbart crowd, and those legitimate editors who support their actions, would feel if the tables were turned. If the project does not find a way to deal with this kind of political influence of its content, and soon, its days are numbered. The Breitbart technique will become more and more widespread until 95% of !voting in politically controversial articles is done by "editors" who know little about Wikipedia principles and care even less about them. The 5% will be needed to provide the policy-based arguments for the other 95% to parrot, and the rest will be voting. If Maher can produce a larger crowd than O'Reilly, the RfC will go to the libs. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:18, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I have listed the discussion here at WP:ANRFC for someone to close it. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 21:32, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  1. ^ http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/26/us/was-the-orlando-gunman-gay-the-answer-continues-to-elude-the-fbi.html?_r=0
  2. ^ http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-orlando-gay-fbi-20160623-snap-story.html
  3. ^ Rising, David (July 20, 2016). "Teen in German train attack acted alone, investigators say". The Star .com. Toronto Star Newspapers, LLC. Associated Press (AP). Retrieved 20 July 2016.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks/Archive_6&oldid=1143725431"