Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 → Archive 10

RFc for major restructuring

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is consensus to move to a table format for the article. There is also strong support for no flags. AlbinoFerret 20:36, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Should the entire article be restructured into table format with each subheading e.g 2015, 2014 etc having its own sortable table like the one shown below (with refs added in the last column or given separate column). Please give your valuable opinion. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 13:12, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Date Location
Incident Death toll Injured
January 5, 2015 Kabul, Afghanistan A car packed with explosives was driven up to the headquarters of EUPOL Afghanistan and detonated. Taliban claimed responsibility. 1 16
January 7–9, 2015 Paris, France From 11:30 CET on 7 January to 18:35 CET on 9 January 2015, a series of five terrorist attacks occurred across the Île-de-France region with shootings at Charlie Hebdo, Fontenay-aux-Roses and Montrouge; followed by hostage crises at Dammartin-en-Goële and Porte de Vincennes. 20 (17 civilians and 3 attackers) 22


  • Support - yes, useful. The flags can go, if difficult to leave, as many (e.g. Mali) are hard to recognize. Zezen (talk) 08:39, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - yes, but the flags are not needed.Kerdooskis (talk) 17:45, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Yes it is very useful. I agree with some of the above users that the flags are not needed. Cheers, Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 18:20, 4 December 2015 (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.

Wrongly deleting of alleged orinigal research

This "issue" has been here on this page before! Once for all it is NOT original research if there is an incident that fits into the two criterias of an islamist terror attack, but is not word by word written in the source. the criteria can be seen in the title of this list. it has to 1. be a terrorist attack. what a terrorist attack is can be looked up in the wikipedia, several examples are also given here on this page, and 2. it has to be motivated by an extreme islamic views and backround. if these 2 points are given and reported in an incident by a newspage it is qualified for this list. the news does NOT has to explicitely say something like "hello people of the world, this was an islamist and terrorist attack...". the words do not have to be put into the source, and it is NO original research. original reserach would be if one simply takes an incident of , for instance a bomb attack in indonesia and just conclude it was an "islamist" attack. one can see one criteria is given, the bomb attack (which is a form of terror), but the other criteria is not given yet, so one cannot write it on the list--> original research. but if there is a man shouting for ISIS(criteria islamist given) and attacking an individual with a knife(criteria terrorism is given) --> both criterias for this list are given and the incident can be listed, this is NO original research. both needed criterias are fullfilled and given in the source. claiming it as OG is simply a form of violating and disturbing the work in wikipedia. i will add the incidents back on and in case of further violation and falsely accusing of original research contacting an admin. have a nice day.Joobo (talk) 15:13, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

And going by just the criteria you list above, you'd be adding incorrect information. Example: the recent Tube station incident in London. Perpetrator shouts "this is for Syria", it gets labelled (reasonably) as an Islamist terrorist attack. But then it turns out, no, the perpetrator is sectioned because he's mentally ill. Not necessarily a terrorist Islamist attack at all, though that's what was originally reported.
Why - if you agree with the premise that "an incident that fits into the two criterias of an islamist terror attack" needs to be described as both - did you remove the editor guidance? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:31, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

(Added:) And - as per the section immediately below - there's another example, in this case the one you added back. Not Islamist terrorism, not terrorism, not even real. WP:RECENT and WP:NOTNEWS would seem to be other relevant policies that should be considered on this article, wouldn't you agree? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:26, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

You're right, Joobo, we have discussed this before but you don't seem to be listening. 66.87.115.233 (talk) 16:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
first of all you silly ip address 66.87.115.233 can go away. you have no voice here. its ridiculous. maybe it is even you bastun. secondly i fully agree with you to delete the incident of the tube station attack when it came clear that it was probably no islamist terrorist attack. ( though this is an exception cause then you have to delete the whole list, cause in a way arent all islamists mentally disturbed???). in this case however i agree that it appears that it doesnt fit into the list. and the incident with the french teacher who accused of an islamist terrorist attacked, i agree with deleting..--> cause it was a wrong accusation. BUT everything else IS an terrorist attack if the TWO criterias are given. WE are not here to decide if someone is mentally disturbed or potentially liyng or whatever...did you know there are even people out there believing 9/11 was an inside job!, since then we may never put something on this list!. only if there is an source that clearly, as the two just mentioned examples of london and france, says that it was no islamist terror attack(also here not teh excact same words have to be said, but the whole incident itself needs to be described in this way), then one can, and even has to delete the incident. as long as there is nothing against it one HAS to put it on if the two criterias are given. again we are not here to decide about someones mental state or credibility. its only a list lsiting incidents fitting into a category. if criterias are given. put them on. if only partial, or later they appear to be wrong. then dont put the incidents on or delete them afterwards. that is the simple thing. no other way of how this thing works, no original research bullshit or some people arguing about someones mental state. i will put the incident of the taliban attack in kabul back on cause it fits both criterias and it makes absolutely NO sense at all to claim something as they are a "series" of attacks? what does this even matter, a series? a single attacK? that is absolutely unimportant. then just edit the incident by saying it was a series of attacks or whatever, but even then it still fits both criterias of terrorism with an islamist backround. but it is no reason to delet ethe incident at all. so far on that.Joobo (talk) 12:35, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
If you're going to mention me in a post, Joobo, do me the courtesy of pinging me so I can see it and respond - especially if you're going to accuse me of socking. No, I'm no that IP - it resolves to the continental United States, I live in and post from Ireland. And like it or not (I don't), IPs are allowed edit the article and comment. I actually agree with some of what you've written above - but I have justifiably criticised you for including material that wasn't referenced. I think perhaps you jump the gun a bit in including material (and many "reliable" sources jump the gun, too, in proclaiming something to be Islamist when it isn't!) BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:30, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Dear Bastun. does it actually is fun for you acting like you do? you know exactly that all the incidents are islamist terrorist attacks. the sources only support the incidents written here by supplying it with data that clearly indicates that the incident listed is A made with an extreme islamic backround and B by violent means aka terrorist attack. of course if there is a source that only talks about an explosion of something somehwere then it is quite nonsense to bring the incident on here and just assume it was an islamist one. that is Original research as you always point out. but if the article/news mentiones the circumstances in which it is evident and stated that it was perpetrated and aimed by islamist or even claimed, and plus it was a violent incident then it is clearly available for this wp article. simple as that. instead of focusing in editing, deleting and similar here just google the terms terrorist attack and islamism. Joobo (talk) 21:16, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
As pointed out in my edit summary, Joobo, you are engaging in WP:OR, adding incidents to suit your POV that do not have reliable sources. In the latest clump of additions you made (please don't add many at once, it makes it much harder to sort the wheat from the chaff!), many of the citations do not label the incidents as terrorsim; many do not label them as Islamist; some mention neither Islamism nor terrorism. To be clear, to be included, an incident must be described as both by a reliable source. Your assumptions of probable perpetrator or motivation does not count. Clear? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:28, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

In his/her latest revert (breaching WP:3RR in the process), Joobo says " they all mention it. in case they dont do your own research. in case of further deletion go ahead and start moderated discussion."

"In case they don't, do your own research"?! Er, no. That's not how wikipedia works. On a non-contentious article, sure, one can add a 'citation needed' template at an appropriate place. Or a 'reference does not state this' template. On a controversial article like this one, though, there are extra, explicit guidelines: namely, do not add material unless a reliable source states that an incident is both terrorist and Islamist.

Joobo, you're still not doing that. Worse, you're claiming your sources state that the incidents meet these two criteria, when many of them clearly don't. In words of no more than three syllables: Don't add incidents unless sources meet both conditions.

Examples:

Incident: Hitoshi Igarashi murder.

Incidentally, all of the references refer to this unsolved murder as a murder, not an assasination.

Incident: Kandahar Airport attack

Incident: al-Qamishli bombing

BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:38, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Edit request 12 January 2016

Please add the following to the end of the "2015-present" section - it meets both required criteria of being described as Islamist and terrorist in the one source:
* {{flagicon|Iraq}} January 11, 2016 - ISIS gunmen detonate suicide vests in a shopping mall, killing at least 20 and wounding more than 40 people.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.france24.com/en/20160111-iraq-baghdad-mall-attack-islamic-state-group|title=Iraq hit by wave of deadly terror attacks|publisher=France24|date=12 January 2016|accessdate=12 January 2016}}</ref>

Thanks, BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:26, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 07:39, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Mr. Stradivarius, done now. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:24, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Several attacks not mentioned

There have been several attacks this year which have been confirmed as terrorist attacks in Paris, Istanbul, Burkina Faso and in Tel aviv, Israel. The terrorist who shot people at the bar in Tel aviv was affiliated with Isis according to various official and credible reports. Dont belittle245 (talk) 10:36, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I meant the vehicular attack in France , not paris I appologize. Dont belittle245 (talk) 10:41, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 18 January 2016

Add a link to List of (non-state) terrorist incidents in the See also section. Wykx 11:46, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

plus Added — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:11, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

SOURCE needs to content BOTH criterias of A-islamist and B- terrorist attack, but NOT the exact terminology of "islamist" or "terrorist".

NO SOURCE has to content the excact words of islamist terrorist attacks. it is NOT needed. what is needed, is that every incident listed here needs to have a source that states WHO acted out WHAT.... so if the lets say taliban act out a bomb blast BOTH criterias of this list are given. since for all out there mostly bastun who still doesnt know about taliban apparently the taliban are an islamist terror group and just in case you dont know about it either a bomb blast is a terrorist attack. simple as that, both criterias are given, no need to discuss or argue any further. im getting damn tired of this wannabecorrect shit of the ips and you bastun who whyever you do it act likethe most stupid monkeys on earth simply taking the og argument eventhough it is no OG at all. only your obsession with words arent fullfilled. but its not about excact words. it is about the incident itself, how the press describes it isnt of any importance. important is THAT they describe it in a way that it gets obvious WHO did WHAT. if i notice any more disruptive editing on this page regarding alleged OG, an admin or higher level wikipedia individual will be taken into this whole thing. it is really ludicrous. have a nice one.Joobo (talk) 14:18, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I will explain this to you once again, Joobo: You need reliable sources that say (a) an incident was a terrorist attack and (b) the incident was carried out by Islamists. If your source(s) don't say both, adding an incident is original research. If you don't agree, try WP:NOR/N. 63.116.31.198 (talk) 17:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Joobo, you also seem to be ignoring and/or have missed the reply in section 26 above, which demonstrates why your unsourced/mis-sourced material is being removed. Kindly also please refrain from personal attacks in edit summaries, your responses here, and on my talk page. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:13, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


are you kidding Bastun?

"Reference: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/12/taliban-kills-scores-ongoing-kandahar-airport-attack-151209153246413.html does not refer to terrorims or Islamism;" are you actually serious? the source explicitly and unambiguously points out to the taliban, which is an islamist terrorist organization, who carried out an attack on the kandahar airport. what else do you want a source to tell you? your "argument" makes no sense at all. i can fully understand that reliable sources are needed, and just you know it, there are way way more other incidents i wanted to consider to put onto the list, but you know what? i didnt do it cause they werent quite clear and sourced. but then the few getting put on here with a normal very good and reliable source you come up and tell something as "original research", with no logical gronds at all. tell me bastun, tell us, what else do you want aljazeera, bbc and co. or any other meda; press; news source to tell you if the stating that an islamist terrorist organization conducted a violent terrorist attack on the countries airport isnt enough and credible for you; no its even og? its absolutely disproportionate.Joobo (talk) 11:57, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Once again - the source does not refer to Islamism or terrorism. And there's a war on. "I think this about that group, therefore this source saying that group did X action - that means Islamist terrorism!" is called WP:SYNTHESIS and isn't allowed. Your five sources for the unsolved murder (which you call assassination, the sources don't) of a Japanese translator do not mention Islamism, or terrorism, in relation to the killing. Etc. Once again - please refrain from personal attacks in edit summaries, your responses here, and on my talk page. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:27, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
"Once again - the source does not refer to Islamism or terrorism." oh no?? "" "I think this about that group, therefore this source saying that group did X action - that means Islamist terrorism!"" it is NOT ME who thinks the taliban is an islamist organization its everyone who "thinks" this even themselves! how ignorant do you have to be to tell everyone that the taliban is everything but islamism?! do YOU have prove for that?? NO! but you act it all the way. and unless you dont prove otherwise they attacked the airport to rob the duty free shop for candys it definetly is an islamist terrorist attack if an international recognized islamist organization conducts such an attack! what you wish or want to believe doesnt matter at all. So basically you keep repeating your same talking over and over again. only cause the "word" islamism and terrorism isnt necessarily involved it is absolutely disqualified for you to be put on the list, completely neglecting the fact that the taliban IS an islamist terrorist organization, declaring itslef this way, and conducting terrorist attacks as ..well for example on the national airport..... and this stupid war in afghanistan?? so what. europe is at war with isis so hence we may not list single incidents either happening on european ground?.. the whole argument frame is ridiculous. basically you say we may NEVER put anything on this list. you will always find something. its either not good enough sourced. or the source doesnt uses the exact words YOU want to hear. or then you come around and tell us that the taliiban is no islamist terrorist organization. or if that is also not enough then you proceed to say well. doesnt matter there is a whole war going on, thats why we may not list any single attacks here.... this is the way you "argue"... and you know what ? i might get the idea that you , for whatever reason, do this on purpose! its completely false. and makes no sense. you will always find a way to argue that this or that incident will not be put on the list. if 9/11 would be today you would find another "argument" to not mention it here. maybe cause no source tells the exact words. or other sources say they were mentally deranged. or just whatever. its a joke. the list has 2 criterias. if both are met and incident can be put on the list. ill do it again. and just that you dont even think about editing it again without the slightest reason. i guarantuee you you wont destroy this site with your disruptive behavior. if there is an incident. and the source mentions an islamist organization behind an violent attack. then it is more than enough sourced and will be put on the list.Joobo (talk) 11:06, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
WP:SYNTHESIS isn't allowed. Your five sources for the unsolved murder (which you call assassination, the sources don't) of a Japanese translator do not mention Islamism, or terrorism, in relation to the killing. Etc. Once again - please refrain from personal attacks in edit summaries, your responses here, and on my talk page. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:27, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
What are you even talking about Bastun? Synthesis`? Lets take the japanese incident out of consideration, im fine with NOT putting it on and it might seem it isnt evident so its okay. it wasnt me either who came up with it. but for the rest i do use ONE single source for ONE single incident in which its obviously and evidently declared WHO was behind WHAT. if WHO appears to be eg. taliban, boko haram(self-and generally declared islamist terrorist organizations) and WHAT appears to be a violent attack attack eg. suicide bombing, gun attack(terror attack) THEN--> it is allright to put it on the list. no OG no synthesis or whatever. simple. i myself want the incidents to be sourced properly. like i said i dont put on here dozens of attacks since the bakcround is not quite clear, as for example many recent lone wolf Palestinian-israeli attacks. but if there is an atttack by the taliban on an airport. the answer is obvious.Joobo (talk) 11:14, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
And sorry if my language appears to be sort fo undecent. but its always nto taht easy to get the own point across on the internet mere by writing and so the style might have ben affected. but the basic points should be clear. Joobo (talk) 11:19, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
If the Taliban (an islamist terrorist organization according to the UN) bombs something, it fits this list. Legacypac (talk) 16:10, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Uh, no. Unless a reliable source refers to an incident as a terrorist attack, it doesn't fit the list, regardless of who the perpetrator is. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:45, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
"Uh, no. Unless a reliable source refers to an incident as a terrorist attack, it doesn't fit the list, regardless of who the perpetrator is" WRONG Malik Shabazz WRONG. a source does NOT have to talk or refer to an incident as islamist terorism in this exact terminology but what the news source explains and states has to content the needed points that fit into the criteria otherwise you just could jsut look for random sources who only have the words you want. no malik as explained several times before the incident itself has to fulfill the 2 criterias so that one is able to but the incidenton the list. and btw, ANY attack or violent action by the taliban is automatically an terrorist attack, why? due to the fact that it is conducted with the mere purpose of islamism. To get money, spread fear, kill opponets etc...so that the extremist views are pushed forward. so what Legacypac is absolutely correct.Joobo (talk) 15:36, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
This fairly long [1] BBC article never uses the word "terrorist". Based only on this source, does the Splendid Hotel attack qualify for this list? Legacypac (talk) 15:56, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Of course! this article explicitly gives evidence that the attack was conducted by islamists. it doesnt have to mention the word "terror/ism/ist". it is without any doubt clear that this is terrorism. this list is called "list of islamist terrorist attacks" and hence includes all attacks and incidents that have been perpetrated by individuals or groops with isalmist backround. Joobo (talk) 23:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Proper procedure instead of edit warring

As some users have taken to blanket deleting content, can I remind them that the proper procedure is to tag the content and discuss it. I agree that we should not automatically include any attack here, but that's why we have discussion boards. If an unsourced attack is added, just remove it. If an attack not attributed to an islamist is added, just remove it. But if an attack is carried out by islamists and the information is well-sourced, then tag it and discuss it here to gain consensus about it. Jeppiz (talk) 09:51, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Some of those removals by Malik was actually right as the Norway attack, but most of his removals are really really questionable. Any mass murder, massacre by Taliban, Al-Qaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram, Al Shadab can be listed here, whether the source mentions it as terrorist attack or not mention it. As these massacres and mass murders are Terrorism.--Marvel Hero (talk) 10:00, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, and WP:BLUE covers exactly that. We don't need a source saying that the sky is blue, or that a massacre by a terrorist group is terrorism. That's not to say these attacks cannot be discussed, but they should not be blanket reverted. Jeppiz (talk) 10:03, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Major issue with this article is WP:OWNERSHIP.--Human3015 It will rain  10:44, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I recommend reading WP:No original research. Unless reliable sources describe an incident as a terrorist attack and attribute it to Islamists, including it here is original research. This has been discussed many times before. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 12:33, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Read what i wrote above. it is NO original research if you mention an incident and take a source that doesnt use the words you point out to. what is needed is that the incident itself has to be carried out by islamists and needs to be a violent action as terrorist attacks mostly are. thats the thing. its not about single words a source needs to content but the circumstance of the incident itself. what the characteristics of the incidents were. the source doesnt has to repeat it over and over again that al-shabab is an islamist terrorist organisation. thats logical.Joobo (talk) 15:42, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Agree with User:Malik Shabazz. There is a reason we require sources citing both Islamism and terrorism. If we don't insist on such WP:RS citations for inclusion, then we end up with those previously added by some users taking part in this debate, where unsolved murders are described as terrorist assassinations. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:34, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

As I mentioned before, some removals by Malik is right. But he is stating original research to remove confirmed Taliban attack as this 2015 Kandahar Airport attack. And there are other removals also (which are confirmed terrorist attack) Either he is trying to be too strict and follow neutral POV or he is simply trying to reduce the number of incidents in good faith to keep the page in readable length. If we list every attack in Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechen, Somalia, Nigeria, Syria, Pakistan, and India, then what will this page become? Marvel Hero (talk) 17:51, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
This fairly long [2] BBC article never uses the word "terrorist" for a mass shooting/hostage taking that killed a bunch of westerners. The group is undeniably a terrorist group (BBC uses the word "militants") and what BBC terms an "attack" can only be shorthand for terrorist attack. Based only on this BBC source, the Splendid Hotel attack would wrongly be excluded from this list by some editors, even though everyone including the attackers would agree it was an islamist terrorist attack. Legacypac (talk) 15:56, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm still not sure what the argument is about. I agree with User:Malik Shabazz that if we don't know who committed a terrorist attack, of course we cannot put it here. But once again, WP:BLUE is very much a relevant policy:
"Sometimes editors will insist on citations for material simply because they dislike it or prefer some other material, not because the material in any way needs verification. For example, an editor may demand a citation for the fact that most people have five digits on each hand (yes, this really happened).[1] Another may decide that the color of the sky is actually aqua rather than blue, pull out an assortment of verifiable spectrographic analyses and color charts to demonstrate that this position is actually correct, and follow that with a demand that other editors provide equivalent reliable sources for the original statement that the sky is in fact blue. While there are cases where this kind of pedantic insistence is useful and necessary, often it is simply disruptive, and can be countered simply by pointing out that there is no need to verify statements that are patently obvious. If the alternate proposition merits inclusion in the article under other policies and guidelines it should of course be included, but it should in no way be given greater prominence because it is sourced."
If it's clear and sourced that an attack was carried out by an Islamist group such as Boko Haram, ISIS, Al-Qaida etc., then I don't see what plausible argument there can be against including it here. Jeppiz (talk) 19:01, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Jeppiz, you're 100% wrong! WP:BLUE is not a policy, it's not a guideline -- it's an essay, which means it's an opinion that nobody is obliged to follow. WP:Verifiability and WP:No original research, on the other hand, are both policies. Compliance with them is not optional. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 20:40, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Ok, it's an essay, that still does not change anything. It's often referred to, and if you think it's "100% wrong" I suggest you argue for its deletion. We should source anything that is not immediately obvious or that is contested. Are you seriously arguing that a massacre by Boko Haram is not "islamist" or that it's not "terrorism"? I must ask, since I'm afraid you've made no convincing argument for why you keep removing perfectly well sourced attacks. Even if it's an essay, I must say I very much think that While there are cases where this kind of pedantic insistence is useful and necessary, often it is simply disruptive, and can be countered simply by pointing out that there is no need to verify statements that are patently obvious. applies here. Jeppiz (talk) 20:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Nothing is "patently obvious". The Taliban, for example, are at war with the government of Afghanistan. Does that mean every military engagement between the Taliban and the Afghan army is a terrorist attack? Reliable sources describe the airport attack that you restored to the list as just that -- one in a series of Taliban raids. Or the Tel Aviv shooting you restored to the list -- none of the sources here or in the Wikipedia article about the shooting describe it as a terrorist attack, but it was perpetrated by an Arab -- must be Islamist terrorism, right? What may seem "patently obvious" to you is not at all obvious to others, which is why we require reliable sources instead of relying on editors' instincts and prejudices. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 21:21, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
As the title makes clear, my edit was based on procedure. If we discuss individual cases and personal opinions, I'd agree with you on the Tel Aviv attack, undecided on the Taliban one and very much disagree on the Boko Haram one. But ok, I'll admit that you answered my question and made your argument clear. You do not think a massacre carried out by a known Islamist group can be listed as an Islamist terrorist attack. While I respect your opinion, I very much disagree with it. Jeppiz (talk) 21:29, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Well if you read my edit summaries and the page history, it would have been clear what I was doing and why. Look at the talk page and its archives. I have been over this many, many times. No, you can't assume that everything the Taliban does is terrorism. Islamist, yes, but describing it as a terrorist attack requires a reliable source. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 21:36, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
By the way, Jeppiz, since you like essays so much: Have you read WP:You do need to cite that the sky is blue? — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 21:26, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

@MShabazz and Jeppiz Just let me get something straight here. So Jeppiz what you are saying is that that guys who wrote this

Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[1] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented.

Were just not right. you can see that they EXPLICITLY wrote the word "FACTS" in there, can't you? Its right there bolded up for you in the very first sentence. This means that unless a RELIABLE source says that an event is a terrorist attack we will NOT be including it. Simple as that, we will NOT be including it. Even if an Islamist mofo runs up to me on the street and tells me personally that he has killed the archdevil Obama, I will NOT be including that in wikipedia. So my question is two fold, firstly why in the name of uncle sam's short and curlies are you citing an essay to violate a policy? and secondly why are you continuing to cite an essay to violate a policy? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:54, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

  • I think we should go for RfC, this is important topic and should be discussed more. Attacks done by Boko Haram, ISIS, Lashkar-e-Taiba, Hijbul Mujahidin, ISIS, Al-Qaida, Jaish-e-Mohamad etc are terrorist attacks, all these are designated terrorist organizations. There is no need to defend these organizations. As per WP:NPOV we should consider their attacks as terrorist attacks otherwise Wikipedia will become biased. Anyway, we need broader discussion. RfC should be started, if anyone is interested (maybe Jeppiz) should start RfC otherwise I can start it myself. Thank you.--Human3015 It will rain  06:44, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
    • One of the problems with your proposal is that governments make political decisions about which groups they deem "terrorist organizations". Being on a list of "designated terrorist organizations" only means that a group has pissed off the government. In fact, more than a few groups so designated later were elected to the government -- for example, the African National Congress in South Africa and the Irgun in Israel. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 13:05, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


Bastun, MShabazz, Jeppiz, Human3015 ..."you can see that they EXPLICITLY wrote the word "FACTS" in there, can't you".. so ISNT it a fact that boko haram if they slaughter and attack a whole village is considered as islamist terrorism??? and also funny "No, you can't assume that everything the Taliban does is terrorism." WRONG. you do NOT get the concept of terror or islamism but want tell us how this site works?? EVERY attack by taliban against regardless whom IS a terrorist attack , since all they aim is to attack their enemy, and their enemies are everyone who are NOT islamists as they are! the afghan national army are not islamsits.. hence they are killed in an attack by the taliban which is ..what asurprise of course islamist terrorism and should be put on the list!. i guess i know why you delete here so much. you know exactly that if isis, boko haram and all the others slaughter and murder people that this is terror by islamists and hence can be put on the list. not even a blind monkey would doubt this. but you are probably (maybe you are a muslim yourself) against the listing of these incidents here cause they are so blatantly against your personal agenda. political religous whatever. you merely take these fake arguments of Original research and verifiability to have at least a ground. but its just pethetic. absolutely. maybe you should get investigated by some admins or so whats really going on here. its absolute bias spreaded around to disruptively crash this whole article down with fake points and arguments.fake wikipedia guidelines that have nothing to do with whats going on here. no person with a clear mind would doubt after reading the bbc article of the burkina faso hotel attack that it was NO islamist terror. Just you. apparently. but there is more behind. why dont you just goahead and let us all know what its all about. and please not the same again with original research. thats wrong and oyu know it. otherwise you could take 90% of all incidents or even more from this article.. or what you probably all wish for just close this site down completely.Joobo (talk) 23:25, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Joobo, you can learn everything you'd like to learn about me (and more) at User:Malik Shabazz. My only "agenda" is to see Wikipedia's policies followed, especially WP:No original research.
You, on the other hand, are a single-purpose account who only knows how to bleat "Four legs good, two legs bad!" — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:44, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
haha nice try malik. you are muslim and just cant stand what your brothers doing for atrocities, you go so far that you even try to hinder people adding incidents here of bokoharam attackers that slaughter people to death alive. to call NOT islamist terrrorism. THATS WHATS ABOUT. no original reseach no nothing! and oyu know it. permanently repeating the point doesnt make it any more logical. you just dont like this site cause it "hurts" to see how many belief brothers of you do bad stuff hence you do anything possible to keep the lsit as short as possible. with the best way. and the only way to delete many entries is. to argue they are not good enough sourced. what a farce. not good enough source cause they missing one single word.. . that is how it is malik. exactly how it is. and you know it. nobody with a clear mind reading an article that mentions the taliban kidnap and kill people would say this was no terror attack, except YOU.Joobo (talk) 00:00, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Malik is a good serious user who is here for all the right reasons. He and I simply disagree on how to implement an important policy and that's all there's to it. I won't be party to any questioning of his motives. Jeppiz (talk) 00:26, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:27, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Tel Aviv shootings

This is for mshabaz: I have difficulty using Wikipedia so I'll leave a copy here.

This is a quote from the article proving that the shooter in Tel Aviv was influenced by IS:

According to the Shin Bet, Milhem abandoned the taxi on a road in northern Tel Aviv, and used public transportation to get to the Wadi Ara region of his hometown. Before fleeing Tel Aviv, Melhem hung a banner on a rooftop on which he wrote “Daesh,” the Arabic acronym for the Islamic State (IS), and another marked “There is no god but God and Mohammed is the messenger of God”, the Shin Bet told AFP.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dont belittle245 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Dont belittle245, you missed the next sentence in the source:
Milhem planned and carried out the attack alone, the Shin Bet said.
Alone. Later in the same article,
The Shin Bet did not link Milhem to Islamic State but noted that he used terminology similar to that used by the terror group.
Yes, terminology similar to the Islamic State and every other Muslim on the planet.
I'm sorry, but there are no sources that establish that the Tel Aviv shootings were an Islamic attack, and all the wishing in the world won't make it so. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:56, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I did not miss the next sentence but I thank you for your concern, a group does not have to claim responsibility in order for such an attack to be terror, but if you were ideologically influenced that is more then enough, for instance look at the case of the Boston Brothers from 2013, they were lone wolves unaffiliated directly with any terror organisation but they were still considered to perpetrate a terror attack by all authorities and media.. There is also lately many new developments in Israel where they are finding out just how influenced by terror and Islamic extremism the shooter was!! Care to examine anything I wrote??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dont belittle245 (talk • contribs) 06:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Dont belittle245, if Milhem was an Islamist or was motivated by Islamism, produce a reliable source that says so in black and white.
As far as Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the Boston bomber, is concerned, look at all the reliable sources cited at Boston Marathon bombing#Motives and backgrounds. In the Boston case, there's a preponderance of evidence, and in the case of Tel Aviv, you're grasping at straws. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:03, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

RFC

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
This is a debate about phrasing, so we need to be careful. There are actually multiple related and very similar but not quite identical questions here, that I'll try to close all at once. 0: "Should ALL attacks by any organization labelled as a terrorist Organization and present in List of designated terrorist groups be called as "Terrorist" attacks" - No - there is clear consensus that the specific attack needs to be called a terrorist attack by reliable sources (RS), and that a "front line warfare action" would not qualify. 1: "both "Islamist" and "terrorist" must be explicitly cited in RS as motivations for the attack to be included on the list" - Almost - this got what looked like consensus, but the "Additional comments" section clarified that what people actually agree to is that the specific attack needs to be explicitly cited as terrorist in RS, and the organization needs to be cited as Islamist in RS, but not necessarily the same single source article, it's enough that the organization be cited as Islamist separately. 2: "any attack described in RS by a designated terrorist group adhering to Islamist ideology should be included on this list" - No, and, again, discussion revealed that most of the people supporting this option didn't actually mean "any attack", but merely any attack reliably described as a terrorist attack. And of course that we need to be sure the attack was actually by the group in question, not a lone wolf. So, it looks like consensus is to include any attack described in RS as a terrorist attack by a group, where the group has been described in (possibly different) RS as Islamist. --GRuban (talk) 12:54, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Should ALL attacks by any organization labelled as a terrorist Organization and present in List of designated terrorist groups be called as "Terrorist" attacks as per the essay at WP:BLUE or should we bind editors to cite reliable sources for each attack. The arguments against this are that as per WP:BLUE essay we do not need to cite the obvious as they have been labelled as terrorist every attack made by them should be called terrorism. While the arguments against are that WP:Verifiability and WP:No original research are both policies and compliance with them is not optional and that these organizations attack a plethora of targets from other terrorists to common civilians, so we should wait until an RS calls something a terrorist attack before including it. The two options being given through this RFC are

  1. Every Incident included here should be sourced to a WP:RS which calls it a terrorist incident. There is a strong need to cite WP:RS which uses the word terrorist incident or its synonyms. e-g An attack by Taliban anywhere in the world will be included only when a reliable source calls it a terrorist attack. TLDR both "Islamist" and "terrorist" must be explicitly cited in RS as motivations for the attack to be included on the list
  2. Any terrorist attack by an organization labelled as a terrorist organization should be included. There is no need to cite any reliable source which labels this as a terrorist attack as these organizations have already been labelled terrorists by WP:RS the essay allowing this is WP:BLUE. e.g Taliban are terrorists, therefore any attack by them, whether in Afghanistan to capture new bases from another terrorist organization, or on civilians in Pakistan, is terrorism and should be included here as per WP:BLUE. TLDR any attack described in RS by a designated terrorist group adhering to Islamist ideology should be included on this list

Please vote with Option one(1) or Option(2) FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:58, 18 January 2016 (UTC) (edited as per LP)

  • Comment: Just to make short comment. Any attack done by any designated terrorist organization should be included in this list. These organizations includes various terrorist organizations designated by UN, US, UK, India, Pakistan, EU etc.--Human3015 It will rain  07:08, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I believe the wording of this RfC does not reflect the debate. Both options you wrote are quite reasonable - a terrorist attack is a terrorist attack and it should be cited to RS. Can I suggest that each side here write a concise proposed lead sentence that defines the inclusion criteria. Then everyone votes on that? Legacypac (talk) 07:24, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
@Legacypac edited RFC FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:35, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Your edits are going in the right direction. The core argument is that an attack must be explicitly labeled both "Islamist" and "terrorism" vs calling a duck a duck even if the RS call it a mallard or a bird. How about this refinement:
Option 1 - both "Islamist" and "terrorist" must be explicitly cited in RS as motivations for the attack to be included on the list
Option 2 - any attack described in RS by a designated terrorist group adhering to Islamist ideology should be included on this list
If we can fairly and neutrally describe the options, editors can vote and present their arguments - we don't need to make the arguments with the options
Legacypac (talk) 08:14, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
@Legacypac done. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:16, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Support for Option 1 - both "Islamist" and "terrorist" must be explicitly cited in RS as motivations for the attack to be included on the list

  • Support. Though I could be convinced otherwise, this policy seems key for ensuring that some attacks aren't prematurely added to the list simply because they "look" like a terrorist attack by an Islamist group. A duck is a duck is a duck, but sometimes a duck is a confusing goose. If we don't have a WP:RS, how do we know who is actually suspected of the attack? Why would we waive such a core aspect of WP for such a highly controversial and nuanced topic? It seems this topic is precisely the type that benefits most from a careful evaluation of sources. Let's not be too literal with this wording, though. Owlsmcgee (talk) 10:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. This in compliance with - and, indeed, required by - our policies on Verifiability, and no original research or synthesis. They are policies for very valid reasons. What happens in the absence of such a requirement? In the very recent past, we've had the inclusion of a years-old unsolved murder in Japan, an attack at a London tube station by a man subsequently sectioned under the UK Mental Health Act, an attack on a Paris school that turned out to be a hoax. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:42, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Edit to add: And obviously nothing precludes bringing a particular incident to the talk page for discussion if required. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:15, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Wikipedia's policies concerning Verifiability and No original research require reliable sources. Editors' instincts and prejudices (and essays like WP:BLUE and WP:NOTBLUE) should have no place here. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 12:52, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - This option ensures reliability. We don't want a list of so-called "terrorist attacks" even if they aren't supported by reliable sources. Small incidents with terrorist groups like the Taliban occur on a regular basis, therefore, in my opinion, aren't warranted as an attack. The listed attacks should be cited in a reliable source as being a terrorist attack for it to be included on this list. Cheers, Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 22:41, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - summoned by bot - following Comatmebro's comments above, a Taliban firefight with U.S. Marines at an outpost in rural Afghanistan is obviously part of a longterm war, and not a "terrorist attack." Similarly, the PKK is listed as a terrorist organization by NATO, but might engage in conventional warfare with the Turkish army. Lastly, both Ukrainian and Russian media and politicians referred to militias in Eastern Ukraine as "terrorists" - how are we to know who are the real terrorists, and who freedom fighters instead? Automatically classifying a fight as "terrorist" when one combatant has been called a terrorist organization promises an endless series or POV edits and edit wars. -Darouet (talk) 08:27, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support My rationale is kinda simpler than others. If any attack etc is a "terrorist" attack carried out by "Islamist guys" sooner rather than later there will be an RS saying that. We here at wikipedia are not a news agency and there is literally zero emphasis on speed of content creation. So we can , and should, patiently wait for an RS to label it as such before adding it to the list. The basic pillars have been created to push for better quality, and never has wikipedia been about "reporting" the facts quickly. We have news services for that, which we use as RS. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:36, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Support for Option 2 - any attack described in RS by a designated terrorist group adhering to Islamist ideology should be included on this list

  • Support I think a duck is a duck even if the RS call them militants or don't use the word "terrorist" or don't explicitly give Islamist ideology as the reason. If Islamic terrorists do something that looks like a terrorist attack - bomb a plane/market/building/bus/, take hostages, mass shooting, or whatever other craziness they dream up - it should be included here. Under Option 1 this BBC article is not good enough to call the Burkina Faso attacks an Islamic terrorist attack [3] for it neither cites a motive or uses the word terror(ist). I would exclude normal battlefield actions in conventional warfare (ie fighting by ISIL and Taliban against government forces) Legacypac (talk) 08:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support for the same reasons given by Legacypac Wykx 11:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support I think this is fairly obvious, and I must admit to not even understanding those who disagree. Is anyone seriously claiming that sometimes the Taliban, IS or Al-Qaida perform attacks out of buddhist, vegetarian, liberal, socialist or jedi convictions? If we know that a group is Islamist, and good sources describe it as islamist, then of course an attack carried out by it is an islamist attack. We should use sources, but this is like claiming we cannot say that a statement by the Pope represents Catholicism if a source just says it's by the Pope without mentioning catholicism. Jeppiz (talk) 11:26, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Clarification: We all agree that when good sources describe an "Islamist" group being responsible for an attack, and the attack is verifiable as an act of terror then it ought to be included as an Islamist terrorist attack. To explain my reason for disagreement, I worry that if good, reliable sources refrain from labeling such an attack for what it seems to be, there is likely to be very good reason for it. That's most likely going to indicate some degree of confusion over the motive or actor. It behooves Wikipedia to wait until there is clarity and verifiable sources to support that clarity, or else we hastily contribute to the confusion. WP is not a breaking news source, so why the rush? Owlsmcgee (talk) 00:39, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
It's good that we all agree on that. Efforts to remove items that fall into that should be viewed as vandalism, not some mere content dispute. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Additional comments

As there are only two options, I had to pick one. My personal preference would be this: We should have a source saying it's terrorism, but don't need a source saying Islamic if it's by a know Islamic group. I agree that not all attacks are terrorism, so requiring a source to mention terrorism is a perfectly valid argument. Requiring a source to explicitly say the Taliban, IS or Al-Qaida are Islamist is rather pointless. The Pope is Catholic even if a source doesn't say so, Obama is US President even if a source doesn't say so, Netanyahu is Israeli PM even if a source doesn't say so, and the Taliban, IS, Boko Haram and Al-Qaida are Islamist even if a source doesn't say so. Jeppiz (talk) 11:31, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you. If a terrorist attack is attributed to an Islamist organization, I don't think it's necessary to have a source describing the attack as Islamist. The bigger problem has been with incidents that are not described as terrorist attacks by reliable sources. Of course incidents not attributed to Islamist groups, such as "lone-wolf attacks", need sources that attribute the attack to Islamists. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 12:10, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Absolutely. I'd support a very high barrier for any lone wolf attack. Neither the fact that a lone wolf is Muslim or even that (s)he had Islamist sympathies is enough in itself for lone wolf attacks. But as we both agreed, attacks by well-known Islamist organizations shouldn't be an issue regarding describing them as Islamist. Jeppiz (talk) 12:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
So-called "lone-wolf" attacks should indeed need a very high barrier for inclusion. Christian terrorism rightly doesn't include the Breivik attacks, for example.
Re the likes of the Taliban and Daesh - what do you do about what is often essentially open warfare? Sure, suicide bombings on civilian targets are clear and will have plenty of sources calling the attack terrorist; less so where it's essentially an armed attack on a base, installation or airport. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:27, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Reasonable people can distinguish a front line warfare action in Iraq (not terrorism) from a terrorist attack on a Paris street or hotel in Burkina Faso. Lone wolfs should be more carefully scrutinized but if ISIL drives a truck bomb into a police station or market in Egypt and brags about it on social media we don't need a source that calls that Islamist and Terrorist any more then a we need to prove the Pope is Catholic. Legacypac (talk) 18:54, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
first thanks for falsy deleting my old account for the minor reason if using "not" appropriate language. if someone has any issue of hearing the truth you might be wrong on wikipedia. furthermore the mere argument my old account would have only been a "single" purpose account is a wrong allegation only to denigrate me. but okay. Regarding the topic im very very confuesed about some peoples views. why should one not mention attacks of isis on military personal? the UN oficially has 194 member states. iraq and syria are among it. so every attack of an islamist organization against anyone is automatically a terrorist attacks since they do not represent a soverign state respecting the UN list of soverign states. why even arguing about that?. secondly, the word terrorism/terror is also fairly superlfous. often there are news articles about a certain incident who have a lot of details and evidence, yet they just dont say this was a terror attack but like that was a suicide attack by.. and so on. so that isnt a terrorist atack? a reliable source is needed to give evidence about the lsitings, but its not needed to state the obvious, that a suicide attack commited by islamists was a terrorist attack. thats just pure logic. or after all this "arguing".. why dont make it easy and edit the introduction a little bit in a way that clearly shows that all incidents listed here can be incidents by lone wolfers, organizations etc. and been carried out in all forms of terrorism, e.g. suicide attack, stabbing, poisoning etc. but thanks again for the unreasonable handling of this talk dispute. instead of deleting how about some genuinenly has a serious look on whats going on here.. Ooboj (talk) 17:57, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
"how about some genuinenly has a serious look on whats going on here." Er, we're having a discussion on how to improve the article. You're ranting incoherently. You're also evading a block, Joobo. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 18:09, 21 January 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.

Attacks in Israel

I realize there have been an enormous debate about what to label as "islamic terrorism", I would just like to point out to the fact that there is an abnormally large amount of attacks listed in Israel that have been considered as religiously motivated rather than politically. Has anyone checked to see if the claim is supported by reliable sources? Makeandtoss (talk) 14:37, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 June 2016


To be added near the bottom of the 2016 list of terrorist attacks in chronological order...


Ghostvet (talk) 22:02, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done - See #RfC: Should the Orlando shooting be included in this list?. - MrX 22:06, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Orlando shooting

I have removed the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting from this list. It does not meet the stated inclusion criteria for the list. The fact that ISIL has, via their media agency, made such a claim does not make it true. The FBI has not made such a determination. Including this entry in this article violates a number of Wikipedia policies including WP:OR and WP:NPOV.- MrX 20:31, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Reverted removal per WP:BRD. Let's see...
  • Terror attacks... check.
  • by Islamist extremists... check.
  • to further a perceived Islamic religious or political cause... check.
  • have occurred globally... Orlando is on earth: check.
  • The attackers have used such tactics as arson, vehicle rampage attacks, bomb threats, suicide attacks, bombings, spree shooting, stabbings, hijackings, kidnappings and beheadings... check.
  • The following is a list of Islamist terrorist attacks that have received significant press coverage since 1980... check.
The FBI is not the only RS to consider. Plenty of RS have determined it was an Islamic terrorist attack. Deserves inclusion. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 20:48, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Please cite one or more reliable sources that says that the Orlando shooting was conducted by "Islamic extremists".
  • Please cite one or more reliable sources that state that Mateen was trying to further an "Islamic religious or political cause"
Note that ISIL's media agency is not a reliable source for anything. Note also that the media speculation is not a substitute for facts.- MrX 21:06, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
I've had misgivings about the Orlando shooting from the beginning. A local yokel announced that the shooter in a homophobic mass shooting had pledged allegiance to ISIL, NBC News announced it as if it were a fact, and all the world media ran with it, sometimes attributing it to NBC News and sometimes not. That doesn't make a homophobic mass shooting an Islamist terrorist attack. How about citing a real expert in Islamism or terrorism? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:59, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. By later accounts, this appears to have been a combination of some mixed up homophobia/self-hate with some attempted justification on the part of the perpetrator and bandwagon-jumping by ISIL. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:49, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The case for calling this an "Islamist terrorist attack" is very weak if we follow the sources that I've seen. The sources in the article simple do not support the material in the article. The Daily Mail article says that "ISIS has claimed responsibility". ISIS is a fringe source and their view can't be asserted in Wikipedia's voice. The Washington Post article merely says that Mateen pledged allegiance to ISIL—again, insufficient for making a conclusion that the shooting was an "Islamist terrorist attack" in Wikipedia's voice. Someone needs to present sources that actually says the Orlando shooting was an Islamist terrorist attack, or it has to be removed per WP:V and WP:OR. Jujutsuan, you said "Plenty of RS have determined it was an Islamic terrorist attack." Please provide links to some sources that actually say that. - MrX 23:09, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Is NYT good enough for you? Not to mention the National Review (POV, yes, but reputable) and CBS. He pledged allegiance to ISIS; that can only mean he was an Islamic terrorist, at least in his own mind (which is, incidentally, what makes someone an Islamic terrorist instead of just a generic terrorist; ISIS leadership didn't have to plan it or have any contact with Mateen in order for him to have done it in their name and according to (his interpretation of) their ideology/exegesis.). No "experts on Islamism" are needed to confirm the obvious when he's stated his motives in plain English. It doesn't even matter if it was a secondary motive; it was still at least part of his rationale. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 00:27, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
None of those sources state that the shooting was an "Islamist terrorist attack". In fact, one source says that according to FBI Director James Comey, "the shooter’s past comments about Islamist groups were "inflammatory and contradictory.". - MrX 00:41, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
The National Review may (or may not) be reputable, but it is absolutely not a reliable source for facts. And why are the other two sources nearly a week old? Have authorities learned nothing about the attack since last Monday morning? — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 01:12, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm conflicted on this at the moment. We do "variability, not truth", but RS are starting to cast doubt on the event as being Islamist extremism/terrorism. The classification as "Islamist" is what's being questioned. Since there's "no deadline" and all, it may be prudent to exclude it for now until a more firm conclusion is given by investigators. At the same time, if it is included, it can always be removed if things change. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:07, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Regarding National Review, WP:BIASED says: "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective." So why exactly is it not RS-worthy??
Regarding your other complaints, it has been determined that he swore his allegiance to ISIS (confused, contradictory, or otherwise). Are you saying ISIS isn't Islamist or Islamic terrorist? This is really very simple. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 03:39, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Him swearing allegiance matters less than how RS characterize the attack. I may be determined his actions were not Islamist terrorism despite him trying to make them appear to be so. But what matters here is what RS call it. That's why I'm conflicted: RS characterizations of events are changing as the information available changes. So too must Wikipedia change in response to the RS. But if we see things are influx, contradictory, or being questioned by top-quality RS and investigators alike, we do have the option to postpone our decisions pending further information. There is not deadline and no need to publish the latest, breaking news (NOTNEWS after all). I think within a week we'll have a better idea of what to do. Until then, I'm not going to commit one way or the other. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:59, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Produce the RS that contradicts the claim that he was a self-radicalized islamic terrorist. Mrdthree (talk) 12:17, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
The world's asylums are full of people who claim they're Napoleon. If one of them attacks a psychiatric nurse, we don't attribute the attack to the French Empire - even if clickbaity tabloids or reactionary sources do. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 08:56, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
The Director of the FBI said he was a self radicalized islamic extremist. Your are making unsourced speculation Mrdthree (talk) 12:17, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Here's a quote and source: In fact, intelligence officials and investigators say they're "becoming increasingly convinced that the motive for this attack had very little — or maybe nothing — to do with ISIS." [4]. Also check out [5]. There's questions being raised by investigators about whether or not this was truly Islamist terrorism or just someone using it as an excuse/cover. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:45, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Again the NPR story is the only source on the claim and its based on anonymous sources that contradict the statements of officials on the record, including the president. The other story is about a comment he made to coworkers 3 years earlier. It is grasping at straws to psychoanalyze a dead man who had no psychiatric problems to the point that it overrides what he said he did when its consistent with his past behavior.Mrdthree (talk) 22:28, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Multiple official and news sources stated that the killer is a terrorist. Multiple official and news sources say that he was a self-radicalized islamist. Deeper investigation into triggers are speculative. A growing list is below.Mrdthree (talk) 10:25, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Miami Herald: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/article83819372.html, 'Terror enemy No. 1: Lone wolves like Orlando killer Omar Mateen'; cites President Obama President Barack Obama said “it is increasingly clear” that the killer, a U.S. citizen, became “radicalized” by “extremist information and propaganda over the internet”. Comey, the FBI director, said no evidence gathered so far pointed to a “plot directed from outside the United States” or that the killer was a member of a foreign terrorist organization.Mrdthree (talk) 10:25, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/06/orlando-shooters-motives-remain-unclear.html 'As Profile of Orlando Shooter Develops, Questions About His Motives Remain' But while nothing we've learned from further investigation into Mateen’s life has invalidated the theory that he was ultimately motivated by Islamic extremism, a profile has developed which, at this point, may align better with a typical mass-shooter than a man who was solely inspired by ISIS to become a jihadist.Mrdthree (talk) 10:25, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/fbi-to-release-transcript-of-calls-between-orlando-gunman-omar-mateen-police/ FBI to release transcript of calls between Orlando gunman, police At this point, Lynch said investigators do not have any information that reveals Mateen was being directed from overseas terrorist networks. Investigators, however, have found evidence of online radicalization.Mrdthree (talk) 10:25, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/13/pulse-nightclub-attack-shooter-radicalized-internet-orlando FBI and Obama confirm Omar Mateen was radicalized on the internet. 'Comey added that he was “highly confident” that Mateen had been radicalized at least in part online. In chorus with Obama he emphasized that there continued to be no evidence, however, of any direct plot, or direction of the shooter, by any foreign group or network.' Mrdthree (talk) 12:13, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Er, you do realise none of those quotes back what you're saying? Quite the opposite, in fact. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:34, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
They all say he was a self-radicalized islamist. Isnt that what this is about?Mrdthree (talk) 10:40, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
So show the good faith brother. Here is the article https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/13/pulse-nightclub-attack-shooter-radicalized-internet-orlando FBI and Obama confirm Omar Mateen was radicalized on the internet. Explain how this disproves he was an islamic radical. Mrdthree (talk) 12:02, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "No evidence gathered so far pointed to a plot directed from outside the US or that the killer was a member of a terrorist org";
  • "a profile has developed which, at this point, may align better with a typical mass-shooter than a man who was solely inspired by ISIS to become a jihadist."
  • "At this point, Lynch said investigators do not have any information that reveals Mateen was being directed from overseas terrorist networks."
  • "there continued to be no evidence, however, of any direct plot, or direction of the shooter, by any foreign group or network."
These, combined with other sources claiming Mateen was probably gay himself, point to a lone-wolf psychotic rather than any sort of organised terrorism. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:42, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
The last item is unsourced speculation. Where does it say this list excludes lone wolf islamic terrorism? Mrdthree (talk) 12:50, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
As Bastun has aptly pointed out, the sources presented immediately above contradict the notion that the shooting was an Islamist terrorist attack. At best, they support the claim "Mateen may have been radicalized over the internet". That is far too speculative to justify including the shooting on list of Islamist terrorist attacks. We simply can't make such leaps of logic.- MrX 13:26, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
The 911 call he made to the cops don't mention gays at all, it just mentions Islam and ISIL. I find it hard to believe the bending over backwards we see here to not call this Islamist terror. It is very well sourced and should be included. "swears allegiance to ISIS" is the next one down, and this attack is certainly more than that. The bias of editors not withstanding, the sources clearly show the inspiration for this attack.Sir Joseph (talk) 16:42, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

"many questions remain unanswered. Investigators do not know ... Mateen’s reasons for attacking the popular LGBT nightspot." From an article written today on the Washington Post website. Not week-old speculation, but the current status of the investigation. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 16:53, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Right, we don't know everything yet, why he chose that or whatever. But we do know it was Islamic Terrorism. He said as such. The 911 calls say as such and the sources say as such. The shooter pledged support to ISIS, how is that not enough? It was enough for the France incident, it was enough for many other incidents. Why the sudden urge to not include very well sourced information? http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/06/19/lynch_partial_transcript_of_orlando_911_calls_will_have_references_to_isis_cut_out.html There is a difference between saying this was an ISIS attack or just saying this was Islamic Terror. We don't know if this was sponsored by ISIL and most likely wasn't, but it was Islamic Terror. Partial Transcript: http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/orlando-nightclub-massacre/fbi-releases-transcripts-911-calls-orlando-massacre-n595626 "In these calls, the shooter, who identified himself as an Islamic soldier, ", ": I pledge allegiance to [omitted] may God protect him [in Arabic], on behalf of [omitted]." and more.Sir Joseph (talk) 16:56, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
You are selectively quoting the source. the source (FBI Assistant Special Agent in Charge Ron Hopper) went on to say ....agents think Mateen “was radicalized domestically,” rather than directed by any foreign terrorist group. This is what every reliable source with named sources states. Not my opinion. Mrdthree (talk) 05:03, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
See above, re Napoleon. If he'd identified himself as a Martian, that still wouldn't make it an act of interplanetary terrorism. Per plenty of sources, the perpetrator seems to have been a disturbed individual, probably gay himself, which caused him all sorts of mental problems given his apparent contradictory religious beliefs. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 18:22, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
I guess that's one way to make sure there is no list of Islamic Terror acts. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:28, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
No. It's one way to ensure that the list of Islamist (notice the difference, it's important) terrorist acts - which I've added to myself - is accurate. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 18:43, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Hardly your average Islamist terrorist... BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 19:11, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Are you saying a gay person can't be a terrorist? Read the news today, there is no mention of his sexuality in the 911 transcripts, only Islam and terrorism related information was in the 911 call. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:40, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
I am saying the issue is a lot more complicated than "He phoned 911 and said he was an Islamist terrorist". BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 19:48, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Then start to remove many of the items on the list where the "terrorist claimed allegiance to ISIS." The DOJ just released the full transcript and again, no mention of gays, only Islam. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:04, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Er... why would you expect a mention of gays?! BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 20:07, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
From the 911 call from the gay club? Isn't it surprising that the killer didn't mention gays once, yet spoke about Islam? Again, he self-identified as a muslim terrorist, I fail to see the need to bend over backwards to have this labeled as a regulr shooting and not Islamic Terror. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:22, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Once again - Islamist, not Islamic. I think your POV is showing... Still not sure why you think the 911 call needs to have mentioned gays, and I think it's irrelevant. What is relevant is that the person who murdered multiple gay people at a gay nightclub appears to have been a regular customer and was apparently gay himself. Which is not common among Islamist terrorists... BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 20:38, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, but we cannot SYNTH one way or the other. RS reported it as Islamist terrorist at first. They're starting to question that (e.g., [6]). As I said before, I can see a reason for inclusion here based on initial reporting, but we need to be prepared to remove or alter based on future reporting and investigation. If it comes to light that Mateen only used ISIL as a cover or excuse for his actions, but investigators find that this was a "typical" mass shooting, we need to remove it from here. That it's being questioned also justifies exclusion from the list until we have a firmer understanding of events and, more importantly, motive. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:48, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
normally reliable but it's totally dependent on anonymous sources that contradict official statements. As a primary source it's quality is low.126.155.46.56 (talk) 22:47, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
A primary source backed by unnamed claims of sources is not reliable. There are no reliable sources claiming he was not an islamist. Mrdthree (talk) 05:03, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
PS - please avoid mental illness labels. We do not know if Mateen was ill or not, and using things like "psychotic" to describe him and other shooters is unwarranted and, in this case, a violation of BDP. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:50, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
You're correct, of course, about my use of the mental illness label - apologies. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:34, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
whether or not he was a member of ISIS is a red herring. He was investigated by the FBI as a radical Islamist twice before. Public statements made by named government sources in multiple primary sources say he was radicalized.126.155.46.56 (talk) 22:47, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Not quite. "...the bureau had investigated and interrogated Omar Mateen on three occasions over the last three years on suspicion he might have been a radicalized Islamic terrorist." Of course, the FBI didn't pursue it because no crimes had been committed, and our system of justice is based on presumption of innocence. Saying that Mateen might have been "radicalized" is not the same as saying that the nightclub shooting was an "Islamist terrorist attack". Wikipedia does not permit WP:OR.- MrX 23:43, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
The conclusion of the FBI was that he was a radical muslim but not a criminal. He came under investigation because his extremism alarmed fellow muslims https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/06/20/i-reported-omar-mateen-to-the-fbi-trump-is-wrong-that-muslims-dont-do-our-part/ Mrdthree (talk) 04:54, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Good context, but not RS in terms of use in article. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:08, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
The article has an FBI official confirm his story-- why isnt it an RS? In particular as evidence for his sympathies and beliefs shared with Anwar AlawakiMrdthree (talk) 22:15, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Because things categorized as opinion pieces (which that is) are not WP:RS. We can attribute statements directly to the author if we think they're an authority on a certain issue. But better to use WP:SECONDARY sources. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:18, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

So suppose he had a gay affair (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3653734/Puerto-Rican-man-claiming-Orlando-shooter-s-gay-lover-describes-friends-benefits-relationship-says-attack-revenge-Omar-Mateen-discovered-one-men-d-threesome-HIV-positive.html) became concerned about having AIDS and then in a fit of revenge and reactionary religious fervor (saw his condition as the fulfillment of religious law) he attacked the nightclub. Does this rule in or rule out? (Speculating now so prob done for while) Mrdthree (talk) 07:20, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I think perhaps you may need to read policies such as WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, for starters... BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 20:03, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I have opened an RfC to cut the useless bickering. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 00:44, 23 June 2016 (UTC)


EDIT: Didn't see survey. PS: I guess we should have survey about whether 9/11 or 7/7 was an Islamist attack. In fact, let's debate obvious facts until the cows come home. R00b07 (talk) 23:46, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Flags

Why exactly have the flags that were here until the 1st of May 2016 been removed and replaced with country names alone? 119.224.86.235 (talk) 01:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

My guess is WP:FLAGCRUFT. But not sure. We really don't need flags generally. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
As I wrote in my edit summary when I removed them, Words as the primary means of communication/WP:EGG, MOS:FLAG, and Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks/Archive 3#RFc for major restructuring, where the closer noted "strong support for no flags". — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:34, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
IMO, the flags were helpful to quickly see which country the attack happened in, but if it's against the wiki rules, I'm not even going to argue. R00b07 (talk) 02:02, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 30 June 2016 a

Where is the list of Orlando and other attacks against US ?

92.26.52.164 (talk) 09:26, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Please refer to Wikipedia:Edit requests for how to submit an edit request (they are not for asking a question). As for Orlando, there is an open RfC about that above. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:31, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks/Archive_3&oldid=1136918716"