Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks

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)

Switching to boxes

Currently working on the attacks from 2002-2009, so if you were about to work on them, don't waste your time. I should be done very soon. Ralphw (talk) 00:52, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I just finished the 2002 one, I'm going to try and finish the next years during the next week or so. Ralphw (talk) 03:17, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

What's the status of this? Natureium (talk) 18:27, 29 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)

'Splain, Lucy.

@Malik Shabazz: Christian terrorism. No one had to invent a new word—Christist, Christianist, papist (gasp! the offensiveness!), whatever—to describe that, and that's considered perfectly NPOV. Why would "Islamic" be any different, especially given that the main article is Islamic terrorism? Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 03:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

if you don't understand the difference between Islamic and Islamist, wiktionary is that way. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:09, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Ever heard of WP:CIVIL? You started with the attitude in your snarky edit summary. I know the difference. But a Muslim committing an act of terrorism in the name of Islam is, by definition, Islamic terrorism. Islamism is a relgio-political ideology, and one source, but not the only source, of Islamic terrorism. And the main page is called Islamic terrorism. Have I mentioned that the main page is called IslamIC terrorism?? Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 03:13, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Have I mentioned that I don't give a *bleep* what the morons who edit the "main page" choose to call it? This is a list of Islamist attacks, and has been since it was moved to this title (following a move discussion) more than a year ago. Did you think that maybe you should move the other article to match this article's title? The morons who edit that page can't agree what it's about or find a source for their made-up definition of what "Islamic terrorism" is. So while that article is fully protected, you come here, to an article you probably never even read before today, and move it. Nice work. And I have some "'splaining" to do. Nice touch. Have I mentioned that I don't give a fuck what the morons who edit the "main page" choose to call it? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:35, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

List articles don't set precedent of any degree of force. That's the privilege of main articles, which lists by default aren't. Yes, you have, about three times. How original of you. You've also mentioned that they're morons (and me too, by extension), plus vulgarities. "Nice work." (See, I give attribution when I copy something.) Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 03:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Malik's point about the meaning of the terms is correct, even if accompanied by incivilities. The move is contested. I agree with Malik's point; the attacks are Islamist (based in fundamentalist or radical Islam). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Also agree with Malik and EvergreenFir. You're obviously around long enough to know about the requirement for agreement on contentious moves. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:19, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

@Jujutsuan:: I have brought up several times over the course of my lifetime, a very simple question. What religion on this planet has caused more deaths by extremists than any other (per capita and overall) within the last 30 years? Note, that last 30 years part. I don't care what happened in 1540 BC because that's not the word we live in today. Nobody has been able answer seriously with an answer other than Islam. As a result, Islamic Terrorism has been replaced with Islamist Extremism. It's a way to soften words to save face. Nothing else.R00b07 (talk) 22:44, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

It's when we confuse political correctness with factual inaccuracy that the problem starts. Case in point: here. Do the majority (or the vast majority, for that matter) of Muslims sanction such attacks? No. Why do these attacks happen? Because some nutcases decide (or not) to get together and go kill people. What's their reasoning? Well, they're taking what the Koran says to an extreme that no self-respecting person would condone. Thus, by definition, Islamic Extremism is more accurate. Dschslava ^Δx parlez moi 05:46, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

@Dschslava: "Do the majority (or the vast majority, for that matter) of Muslims sanction such attacks?"

Of Course Not, but by looking at Pew Research Numbers, there are plenty of Islamists that do not take up arms violently. Let's look at just one country. One country that has not had a major conflict since 1974. Bangladesh. Bangladesh has a population of around 171,700,000 ; the 8th highest in the world. 87% of People from Bangladesh are Muslims, according to Wikipedia itself. According to Pew, 26% of the Muslims in Bangladesh believe that "attacks against civilians in defense of Islam can be often/sometimes justified".

So, 87% of 171,000,000 is 149,379,000.

And 26% of 149,379,000 is 38,838,540.

From one country alone, we can conclude within a very generous 20% margin of error that there are at least 31,070,832 Islamist Muslims who condone "attacks against civilians in defense of Islam", at least on occasion. Remember, this is just one country, and one that isn't even war torn right now. Now, are all of those Muslims going to kill people? Of course not. They aren't Jihadists. They are non-violent Islamists. But you see where the concern is.

Source: (http://www.pewforum.org/files/2013/04/worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-full-report.pdf)

Disclaimer; All I did was crunch the numbers. So if you have anyone has problems about supposed Islamophobia, take it out with Pew Research, but most importantly, take it out with the people who said "yes" in the survey. It's their horrid beliefs, not mine. R00b07 (talk) 16:28, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Caveat lector. R00b07, so now we're setting the beliefs of a quarter of Muslims in a Third World country where education is, for all intents, nil, and where poverty runs rampant (and Death too—memento mori) as justification for inaccuracy in terminology? In this world, we do not, as self-repecting citizens thereof, willfully misattribute monikers like 'terrs orist' to ethnic and religiougroups where relatively sane members see the irrationality of the behaviour of fellow members of the group. It seems to me that people are mistaking 'political correctness' for 'factual ambiguity' (or, as is so prominently the case for others, 'factual inaccuracy') and using that as veiled justification for vile racist acts full of perfectly unreasonable hatred. I do hope that you are not one of these people (unlike some others on this thread) but instead, like me, work to correct it when it has gone too far (for instance, using racist words when referring to them as racist should by no means be condemned). Statistics often lie, by the way. Statistics tell the truth too, any truth that anyone cares to derive. I'm not questioning the veracity of your source, by the way—I'm questioning your desire to hide behind it and let it make your very general case for you.

"so now we're setting the beliefs of a quarter of Muslims in a Third World country where education is, for all intents, nil, and where poverty runs rampant (and Death too—memento mori) as justification for inaccuracy in terminology" - Dschslava

No, we are setting the beliefs based on how they responded to the poll. I understand your education and poverty argument, but that makes my point even stronger. The poorly educated can be easily indoctrinated, and the poor would do almost anything to put bread on the table, even if that means killing civilians.

Here's a better counter argument. Osama Bin Laden was not a poor man. Before 9/11, Bin Laden had a fortune worth $300 Million. Source: (http://www.forbes.com/2001/09/14/0914ladenmoney.html) Ziad Jarrah, One of the 9/11 hijackers, had a wealthy and secularist upbringing. They were so well off that Jarrah was able to move to Germany in 1996. Tashfeen Malik, (One of the Two San Bernardino shooters) had a very wealthy family and received a degree in pharmacology at Bahauddin Zakariya University. Rizwan Farook, (The Other San Bernardino shooter) was born in America and received a bachelor's degree in environmental health. Sources: (http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/san-bernardino-shooting/san-bernardino-shooters-used-four-guns-explosive-device-atf-n473286) (http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/06/us/san-bernardino-shooter-tashfeen-malik/)

I could list more, but you get the point. You don't need to be poor or uneducated to be radicalized. It happens to all kinds, rich and poor, educated and uneducated.

"In this world, we do not, as self-repecting citizens thereof, willfully misattribute monikers like 'terrs orist' (sic) to ethnic and religiougroups (sic) where relatively sane members see the irrationality of the behaviour of fellow members of the group." - Dschslava

I'm with you man, I'm waitin' for the day there is mass protest in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and every other Islamic country for free speech (even to draw their prophet), gay rights, apostasy rights, and for women's rights (like driving in Saudi Arabia for starters), and massive (Millions!) of Muslims to come out and protest the small, fringe minority of Islamists. That's what I want as Non-Muslim, and that's what I would want if I were a Muslim.

"...using that as veiled justification for vile racist acts full of perfectly unreasonable hatred"- Dschslava

Islam is not a race, it is a religion (and arguably a political system, see Sharia Law). There are Black, White, Arab, and plenty of other shades of Muslims. For example, you are born Italian and there is nothing you can do to change that. You might be born into practicing Islam, but at least in America, you can leave your family and practice whatever you want. In other countries, you can still not believe Islam, but you have to deal with the Sharia Law that is in place there.

I agree that nobody should hate anybody for anything, but criticism of a set of ideas =/= hatred of a group of people. R00b07 (talk) 22:58, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

R00b07, I don't want to make any claim, but your edit appears to have modified Dschslava's comment a little bit, not sure if intentional or accidental. That said, I agree heavily with R00b07 on a couple points, 1. Criticizing a religion for the ideas the present should be a right, just like those presented by any other person or entity. 2. A religion does not equate to a race, I only bring this up because I have on occasion heard the downright ridiculous claim that criticizing a belief is racism. And 3. Some of the beliefs that many (not all) Muslims hold in the third world do not, could not, and should not ever be translated to the first world. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:12, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

R00b07 and Mr rnddude, I will allow that I erred in the use of 'racism' in this respect. In my defense, however, I can find no single word that describes prejudice against a certain religion quite as well. I'm off to run an errand, however, but will complete my reply later. Dschslava ^Δx parlez moi 23:53, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

That's fine, I will see your reply when you return. That said, there is a difference between criticism and prejudice. The third world and the first world are very different in many respects, this applies to Islam as well, though I fear not in all respects. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:00, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

@Dschslava:@Mr rnddude: If I edited any comment by Dschlava, I would like to apologize. It was a mistake on mistake on my part. It honestly don't know how it happened, but it most likely happened when I was copy pasting his words to make a rebuttal. Sorry for any damage. R00b07 (talk) 02:49, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Not a problem, any accidental change could easily be rectified, I only noted a couple bytes of change total which didn't affect the meaning of the comment at all. I would assume it happened during copy paste as well, the nature of the change would be consistent with an accidental click and drag of letters. That's all Mr rnddude (talk) 03:38, 3 July 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. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮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. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮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." [1]. Also check out [2]. 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. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮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. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮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. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮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. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:43, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

• "Mateen appeared conflicted about his religion and his sexuality, according to dozens of interviews with those who knew him. He married twice, each time to a woman he had met online, even though he also seemed drawn to gay life and culture."
• Orlando shooter Omar Mateen's ex-wife says he had 'gay tendencies' as Pulse patron describes attacker as 'a regular'
• The FBI is investigating reports that Orlando nightclub shooter Omar Mateen used gay dating apps and regularly visited Pulse before he shot more than 100 people inside, killing 49. One man said Mateen had asked him out, while another said they had chatted on a dating app.

Hardly your average Islamist terrorist... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮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". Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮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?! Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮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... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮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., [3]). 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. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮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... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮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)

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

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

Survey

• No: At the moment, the motives remain unclear. It seems he did not have any links to foreign organizations like ISIS. See discussion here for various sources. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 00:44, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • You don't have to have any links in order to support the cause and implement an agenda. 203.30.95.21 (talk) 00:18, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
    • But you do have to have links to reliable sources to report it on Wikipedia. We are not a news outlet, we don't report what hasn't been reliably and widely reported. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:23, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
      • Right, we are an information hub and we use sources given by news outlets to provide accurate information to the public. R00b07 (talk) 02:09, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

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)

• No Today's news brought reports that the gunman's male lover, who has been interviewed by the FBI, says the attack was motivated by revenge for mistreatment at the nightclub and fear of contracting HIV from gay Latinos. Read WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NODEADLINE. Let's wait for the dust to settle before we declare this Islamist terrorism. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:36, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • The problem is that the dust did settle, and the FBI made it clear that it was Islamic Terror. R00b07 (talk) 02:11, 1 July 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

• Yes Omar Mateen pledged allegence to ISIS https://www.fbi.gov/tampa/press-releases/2016/investigative-update-regarding-pulse-nightclub-shooting. ISIS has a strategy of encouraging lone wolf attacks in Western countries for more than two years https://www.fbi.gov/news/testimony/isil-in-america-domestic-terror-and-radicalization 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/ Mateen voiced his motives to victims (saying it wasnt a racist attack it was to stop bombings of ISIL) http://www.democracynow.org/2016/6/15/headlines/orlando_survivor_says_shooter_wanted_us_to_stop_bombing_afghanistan and voiced his motives to officials which were to stop bombings of ISIL http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-06-15/orlando-gunman-wanted-to-stop-us-bombing-afghanistan/7511586 and 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) 23:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

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)

• Yes, he pledged allegiance to ISIS, on the 911 call, he mentioned Islam and did not mention gays at all. It clearly is the same as other terror attacks where "pledged allegiance to ISIS." Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:46, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
• No. The fact that he "did not mention gays at all" is a somewhat bizarre non sequitur. If someone dressed as Napoleon or claiming allegiance to Mars attacked somewhere, we would not attribute it to the French Empire or add it to a List of interplanetary attacks. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:12, 23 June 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 need to Rush to Judgment here. This seems (opinion) to be more of a homophobic thing than a religious one. To me. At this time. Carptrash (talk) 18:16, 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)

• Strong No. Need definite proof first. Unless declaring war and invading countries without evidence is back in vogue. — 2602:306:ce95:57b0:549d:5e23:e8eb:3703 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 00:33, 25 June 2016‎ (UTC) (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)

• No. Needs to be stated in a source, rather than rumoured, for inclusion. PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:40, 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)

• And that lends to a YES. Nobody is saying that the attack was an ISIS attack, just that this attack was an Islamist terror attack. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:02, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
• I don't think the your second point is actually in dispute. No one is suggesting that ISIS had prior knowledge of this attack, or that it was planned in any way by ISIS. Brianbleakley (talk) 16:06, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
• What difference would it make if ISIL didn't know about him? How does that make it *not* a terrorist attack committed by an Islamist? Vektor00 (talk) 16:18, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

• Yes. Regardless of Mateen's formal affiliation with any Islamist groups, during hostage negotiations he described himself as a "soldier of Islam." If Wikipedia wants to define "Islamist" to not mean all "Islamist extremists", as it currently is, then fine, but Mateen was an extremist acting in the name of Islam (regardless of what his "true" motivations were). Joshua Garner (talk) 16:39, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
• 'Yes.' One does not need a "Soldier Of Allah" card in order to be a jihadist. The probable fact that he was self-deployed rather than formally allied with ISIL does not lessen the Islamist aspect of his act of terrorism. The Sanity Inspector (talk) 16:48, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
• Yes: Strong support in sources. Attempts to introduce the spurious standard of affiliation with and/or direction from a recognized terrorist organization is OR, and disingenuous. D.Creish (talk) 17:04, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
• 'Yes.' Agreeing with all above "yes" reasons while also mentioning that the FBI has found 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
• Strong Yes.: He declared his support for ISIS during the attack. Quote from Mateen: "“America and Russia stop bombing the Islamic state..I pledge my alliance to [Islamic State leader] abu bakr al Baghdadi ..may Allah accept me,” -- No evidence found that he was even gay. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/investigation-into-orlando-shooting-continues-no-impending-charges-expected/2016/06/15/c3eccf5e-3333-11e6-8758-d58e76e11b12_story.html
• Yes That the shooter may have had other motivations does not outweigh explicit declarations of allegiance to Islamist causes committed in an act of terror. The debate about whether the incident was a hate crime or terrorism strikes me as rather silly—it's quite clearly both. --BDD (talk) 17:34, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
• 'Yes.' Given all information available from media and police sources, refusal to include this attack in the list is highly suspect, and reduces confidence in the impartiality of the site. Thou doth protest too much. Tim Riches, Mississauga, Ontario (talk) 17:39, 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?
• 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)

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)

• Yes For reasons already stated above. TillsTalk 20:25, 30 June 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)

• Strong Yes I believe the shooter himself qualifies as an RS, and he made his motivation for the attack clear in his public statements. It is not for us to second-guess his motivation. AlanSiegrist (talk) 20:54, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
• Strong Yes: This clearly meets all criteria and there are countless sources. Singleiron (talk) 21:25, 30 June 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 [4]. 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 [5]. 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)

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)

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 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)

• I support the call for a SNOW close. D.Creish (talk) 14:26, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

  This is not an RfC within an RfC. There is no point voting for a SNOW close. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:31, 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)

• Deleted this as it was in the wrong section. BHC (talk) 20:37, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

  Your vote is in the wrong place @BHC: I suggest you move it to the appropriate subsection (in this case 6.1 Survey). Editor has moved their comment to the appropriate section, thank you. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:26, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

  Ahh, whoops, thank you, I've moved it now. BHC (talk) 08:49, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

• For all of you "strong yes"-ers: if someone, in the course of committing an extravagant outrage, proclaimed "allegiance" to extra-terrestial aliens, would that prove he was an extra-terrestial alien? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:35, 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 [6]
• 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: [7]
• 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: [8]
• Hillary Clinton referred to it as "radical Islamism": [9] 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. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮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. [10]. 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)

Recent evidence from the FBI about Orlando

From yesterday's article titled "FBI investigators say they have found no evidence that Orlando shooter had gay lovers" found here: http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-orlando-gay-fbi-20160623-snap-story.html

"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. Several Pulse regulars have come forward in the days since the shooting, claiming to have seen Mateen at the club or to have been contacted by him on the gay dating apps Grindr, Jack’d and Adam4Adam. On Tuesday, Univision aired a report in which “Miguel,” a man wearing a disguise to conceal his identity, alleged he had sex with Mateen after meeting him on the gay dating app, Grindr. He said Mateen >had sex with other men too, including a threesome with a Puerto Rican who allegedly told Mateen, after having had unprotected sex with him, that he was HIV positive. But investigators do not consider the man’s account credible, according to one senior law enforcement official with access to the investigation."

In light of this information, it seems that indeed Orlando was motivated by extremism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.233.156.49 (talk) 14:06, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

No, that would be a false binary. Let's let the FBI finish doing their job.- MrX 21:56, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Did you miss the first sentence of the quote about Mateen? "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 wasn't a "process of elimination" conclusion that it was extremism, this is actually what Mateen's affirmative motivation was as reported by the investigators. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.233.156.49 (talk) 14:44, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Maybe I misunderstood how you were reaching your conclusion, in which case mentioning the gay angle is not really relevant. Whether Mateen's own pledge of allegiance to ISIL is sufficient for characterizing the shooting as an Islamist terrorist attack is at the center of the editorial dispute (above). Obviously opinions vary. - MrX 18:11, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Mateen's only claim is Islamist extremism. ISIL or Hezbollah or Chechen or Taliban matters not in a self-radicalized Islamist terror attack against Western policy. It is sufficient that he attacked unarmed persons because he disagreed with the policy that killed Muslims. That is not an uncommon motive and the flavor of Islam is not relevant. We have a lot more evidence of his Islamist terror motive than any anti-LGBT motive. --DHeyward (talk) 00:09, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Why is the self gay hatred narrative still being peddled around, when it is significantly less plausible than any other factor being brought up? R00b07 (talk) 00:44, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

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. Stop this PC nonsense. You are disrespecting the deceased victims names if you call this anything other than what it really is: Islamic Terror. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Battlefront228 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Yep. Here are some sources.

http://www.foreigndesknews.com/breaking-news/pro-isis-group-calls-lone-wolf-attacks-west/ 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.wsj.com/articles/islamic-state-urges-lone-wolf-attacks-in-the-west-1465773874

I could bring up more, but I don't want to spam. R00b07 (talk) 00:31, 2 July 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...

• Florida June 12, 2016 - Omar Mateen, pledging allegiance to ISIS, attacked the Pulse gay nightclub in Orlando, Fl, killing 49 and wounding 53 others before he himself was killed in a shootout with police. url=http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/12/us/orlando-nightclub-shooting/

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2016

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

Cite: 

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

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

Here are some sources for terrorist attacks not currently listed:

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

June 28 Ataturk airport bombing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disruptive editing in the middle of an RfC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 30 June 2016

WP:DENY TimothyJosephWood 18:57, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I would like to rightfully restore the Orlando and Turkey terror attacks to the list as they have been clearly demarcated as acts of Islamic terror. Jrcoyne99 (talk) 19:39, 30 June 2016 (UTC) You may wish to participate in the above RfC. BethNaught (talk) 19:41, 30 June 2016 (UTC) wankers arguing semantics. it's a duck. call it a duck. I mean that literally. Add the Orlando Nightclub attack to the page "list of ducks"  Not done - You may wish to participate in the above RfC. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:24, 30 June 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)

Protected edit request on 30 June 2016 b

Two recent attacks appear to be missing:

12 June 2016 Orlando Nightclub Shooting.

28 June 2016 Istanbul Airport Attack.

I'm happy to generate summary lines similar to others in the attack list. Thanks!

Snowman1776 (talk) 16:50, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done - Please read the rest of this page.- MrX 16:54, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Too involved. Don't close requests. --DHeyward (talk) 17:22, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

The more I see of this page, the more it seems that the "List of... " format is a disaster waiting to happen. The motive for some of the attacks is not as easy to pin down as the mainstream media or armchair experts on Islamic radicalism seem to think. As I've also said, there is a risk of a false dilemma when an attack may have had a range of different motives.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:27, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

The page is fully protected due to a content dispute largely brought on by a breitbart article. The request is asking to continue that dispute. There's no reason an involved person cannot answer. Heck, no sources were provided either. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:38, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

@Ianmacm: Perhaps but another problem is the difference between "the" motive and "a" motive. No one seems to doubt that this was violence against LGBT people but there is much less evidence of that connection. Nevertheless, both islamic terrorism and anti-LGBT can be a motive and we are not limited to a single list. Islamic terrorists execute gay people routinely so the lists can intersect. Why ignore all the sources that say it was Islamist terrorism? The Boston bombing was at least as complicated. --DHeyward (talk) 17:47, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

The regular Wikipedia editors are agreed that mass shootings, bombings etc may have various motives. This page has degenerated into a mess because it sees things in black and white rather than shades of grey. As for the 2016 Istanbul Atatürk Airport attack, the Turkish government has blamed ISIL but there is as ever scope for debate.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:58, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Anyone can close requests. Your demand is declined.- MrX 17:51, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Ongoing RFC above. Please join there. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:35, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

The RfC only concerns Orlando. Can we get some views on Turkey? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:40, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Currently discussed at #June 28 Ataturk airport bombing EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:45, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty much through with the RfC about Orlando because it has been meatpuppeted by Breitbart. The main concern now is whether this page has a viable format due to the difficulty in extracting a Boolean yes/no answer for the motive.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:42, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. I think the RFC is still valid. It doesn't matter how people noticed this issue. The RFC header itself advises that if you came here as a result of a message off wiki, please adhere to our guidelines. It goes on to say "However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome." If the users you claim were brought here as a result of reading a Breitbart article, then their opinions are as valid as yours, provided they adhere to our guidelines. If you believe the result should not be valid, please seek consensus to change the RFC process. That it is not going the way you wish is not a reason to try to derail the result. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:12, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Whether they actually adhere to wiki guidelines is another thing. I suppose that many people come to wikipedia with ulterior motives—remember the ARBCOM messes on Falun Gong and Gamergate? Dschslava ^Δx parlez moi 19:58, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

What does it matter if there were 1 or 1,000 extra votes when the process of deciding is determined by the quality of arguments? Using the number of participants as a way of invalidating the RfC is more opposed to Wikipedia policy as it encourages the complete dismissal of all arguments in favor of the status quo, which is decidedly towards the no vote without any discussion. --Toomanyaccountsargh (talk) 20:54, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Conservatism?

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

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

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

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

@. I also find it hard to fathom the link. Conservatism meaning different things in different places, my guess is it's about arguing the case for returning to 'original values', but I personally find this tenuous. Ping to Dimadick who added the tag one year ago[11]. As Dschslava says above, it's generally up to the projects what they include within their scope because it's generally unimportant for the content (talk about canvassing from a Wikiproject is probably overstating reality), but it can also be up to article editors to maintain the talk page according to local consensus. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:28, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Protected edit request on 1 July 2016

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For clarity R00b07; [12] if this is indeed Clark County Prosecution then the motive is as far as it is known "murky". I find it odd that a government website would link to Wikipedia of all places but okay then. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:46, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dhaka Hostage Crisis, ISIS Claims Responsibility

Recent Developments: (http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/01/asia/bangladesh-dhaka-shooting/)

Most likely not going to be put on the list, even after 2-3 weeks and evidence and sources come out, I imagine. Disgusting. R00b07 (talk) 22:12, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

• "They reportedly chanted "Allahu Akbar!" during the attack". 5 Confirmed Dead. 20+ Most Likely Dead. R00b07 (talk) 22:14, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
  • What somebody chants has less than nothing to to with whether a terrorist attack appears in this list. According to the source provided, currently ISIS claims the attack, the government denies it, and the FBI says—based on a very preliminary analysis—that it's likely not ISIS but al Qaeda in the Indian Subcontinent. I'm 100% certain that until a reliable source says with confidence that it's an Islamist terrorist attack, it won't be included in the list. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:49, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
    • @Malik Shabazz: As somebody kindly reminded me, this is not about ISIS but about Islamist terror, and what exactly are Al-Qaeda if not Islamist fundamentalist terror? Mr rnddude (talk) 00:00, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
      • Mr rnddude, when two sources—the Bengali government and the FBI—disagree fundamentally about who committed the attack, we don't say, "They're both right! It was Islamists!" Please reread my message, including the words "with confidence". Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:04, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
        • @Malik Shabazz: Sorry, I may have misunderstood your comment, it appeared to me that you were suggesting that an Al-Qaeda inspired incident wouldn't qualify for this article. I didn't mean to say include them right now, I only meant to outline that regardless of whether ISIS or Al-Qaeda are responsible (if either are) then this will qualify the incident for the article. Apologies if that was misunderstood. I agree with you on the above, recent developments won't be included in this article, especially not with the hullabaloo over Orlando. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:08, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
          • The only reason there's a "hullabaloo" over Orlando at this point is that a number of editors are clinging by their fingernails to any procedural excuse, no matter how transparent and flimsy, to not add Orlando to the list. I figured that was just typical refusal to admit error, but if that's going to now be used as an excuse to keep other Islamist terror attacks off the list as well, it's starting to seem like the ultimate goal is to eliminate this list entirely for political reasons. 2601:602:9802:99B2:4C8C:7DAB:340E:C53F (talk) 02:38, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
            • Oh boy! Another would-be editor with a reading comprehension problem. What part of "until a reliable source says with confidence that it's an Islamist terrorist attack, it won't be included in the list"—and its corollary that once a reliable source says with confidence that it is an Islamist terrorist attack, it will be included in the list—isn't clear to you? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:33, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
              • Uncountable RSes have already said that, as the briefest glance upwards on this page will testify. And yet, here we sit, because dragging out the procedure here is politically useful. 2601:602:9802:99B2:4C8C:7DAB:340E:C53F (talk) 07:42, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
                • Is Reuters a good enough source that we can finally put this under the Islamic attacks section? "Islamist militants kill 20 in Bangladesh before commandos end siege" http://www.reuters.com/article/us-bangladesh-attack-idUSKCN0ZH5HE Cyberpunkas (talk) 22:10, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Definition

I think this article should include the definition of what an Islamist terror attack is before the attacks are listed. Then, discussion can follow as to whether a given attack satisfies the requirements to be on the list. Avangion (talk) 23:52, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

• @Avangion: Wikipedia already has a good definition. "Islamic terrorism is terrorist acts committed by groups or individuals who profess Islamic or Islamist motivations or goals. Islamic terrorists justify their violent tactics through interpreting the Quran and Hadith according to their own goals and intentions." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_terrorism) R00b07 (talk) 00:20, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
  • LOL, you mean the definition that finally got a long-needed source on Tuesday?
    This list is about Islamist terrorism, not Islamic terrorism. If reliable sources describe an incident as a terrorist attack and attribute it to Islamists, it's an Islamist terrorist attack. Without reliable sources, it's original research. It's that simple. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:34, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
    • @Malik Shabazz: Mr. Malik Shabazz, as long as a definition has a legitimate source to back it up, it is permissible to be used on Wikipedia. it doesn't matter if it was ratified last night or in 1563. A verified definition is a verified definition. Of course any item on Wikipedia needs proper sourcing. I don't think anyone's arguing against that. R00b07 (talk) 00:48, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Thinking about a more dynamic style of presentation

As pointed out in the RfC above, the Orlando nightclub shooting would not be the only fraught/complex event in the list. There's clearly some context required to understand the extent to which some of the events should be listed. Maybe it would be worth exploring other ways of presenting the list such that the conversation is not just "include or not include". For example, a separate section for attacks where the motivations, etc. are disputed (by sources, not by editors). Or turn the whole page into a table that then color codes rows depending on certain factors (couldn't get too carried away, lest we get into OR, of course).

If this has already been hashed out in one or more of the walls of text I haven't combed through, my apologies. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:43, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Two major divisions would be (1) Islamist-sponsored terrorism, e.g. 9/11, and (2) Islamist-inspired lone-wolf terrorism. But even that would be too coarse, since there is a distinct and important difference between somewhat-rational lone wolves who fully understand and subscribe to jihadist ideology and those who are simply angry lunatics who need a place to hang their anger and arbitrarily choose jihadism. Another example of the latter is Robert Lewis Dear, who chose pro-life. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:45, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

If you're willing, Mandruss please avoid using mental illness descriptors. These folks were not mentally ill by medical definitions (and those of us who are in some fashion are not dangerous killers like these people). That said, I think the idea of reorganizing the list is a good one. Mandruss' idea makes sense. We could have a column or something with notes about self-proclamations (lacking other investigative evidence). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:37, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I'll avoid overgeneralizing but, for example: "Following subsequent evaluations that determined Dear to be delusional, the judge in the case ruled in June 2016 that Dear was incompetent to stand trial and order him indefinitely confined to a Colorado state mental hospital." I think it's fair to say that mental illness is a major factor in most mass killings, and that doesn't exclude all of those which also have a terrorism connection. Perhaps "lunatic" was not the most sensitive choice of word. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:07, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Propose RfC on reorganization of list per Mandruss following closure of in-progress RfC. Dschslava ^Δx parlez moi 06:33, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

There's definitely some merit in Rhododendrites' and Mandruss' suggestions. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:12, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, the motive in the Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood shooting undoubtedly involved abortion, but Robert Lewis Dear, Jr was also found to be not of sound mind at the time of the shooting. It almost invariably emerges that U.S. mass shooters had been flagged for mental or behavioral problems at some point prior to the shooting, and Omar Mateen was no exception. Contrary to some misrepresentations of what I have said, Mateen did have an Islamic motive based on a garbled understanding of some of the radical Islamic websites that he had read, but it is not the full picture. Without Mateen being exactly the type of deranged loner who does this type of thing, the Orlando shooting would not have happened.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:41, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I would place Mateen in that third category based on current evidence, and I wouldn't oppose including Orlando in that section of a restructured list here. The sticky parts are (1) what to call that section, and (2) at what point do we run afoul of NOR/SYNTH? Need smarter editors than me for those questions. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:46, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I can make an attempt at suggestion a couple names for that section. 1. Islamist-attributed attack, or, 2.Islamist-alleged attack. It'd be a bit difficult to make a section for each possibility but alleged might work to cast that shadow of doubt we (some of us) hold. It's also fairly easy to explain why that shadow of doubt exists in the actual entry. For example, Omar claims allegiance to ISIS prior to the attack, however, -insert other causes here (homosexuality, faith, mental health, etc)-, That sort of thing might suffice. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:52, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Can we clarify, please, that this proposal for a revised version of the page is not a reason to avoid putting Orlando on it in the meantime? There's no reason we can't both maintain the existing page and explore a new one. 2601:602:9802:99B2:B4FA:4965:6831:C637 (talk) 20:41, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Islamist vs jihadist

Forked from preceding thread. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:59, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

BTW, I object to the use of the word "Islamist". Jihadism has only a tangential connection to Islam and is certainly not representative of it, so Islamist is both misleading and incorrect. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:29, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

And Crusading has only a tangential connection with Catholicism, well no it doesn't, it has a distinct connection with it but is not representative of it (well, not anymore at least). In essence I'm trying to say that Jihadism is directly linked to Islam, but agree that it is by no means representative of it. Perhaps a simpler explanation would be; No Islam, No Jihad. Just a little bit more, that is not to say no Jihadi behaviour, only that it would take upon another name. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:36, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Could you fork this to a separate section? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:40, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Done, sorry. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:45, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, had to leave for elections. Thanks for the move Mandruss. @Mandruss: If I were to distinguish between a Jihadist and Islamist (off the top of my head so perhaps not particularly useful but perhaps you could dispel with this notion if you find it erroneous), it would be this, a Jihadist would be militant crusading (such as for ISIS) in the name of Islam, and Islamist (I assume extremist) would be a person committing some action, separate from a cause, in the name of Islam. Jihadism, as I understand it, is much like Crusading. What do you think of such a distinction? is there something you'd add, remove, modify, I'd like to know your opinion on this. I'll give it some thought myself since this is just off the top of my head. Thought I'd also add this, Islamist is a term I am not particularly familiar with and have often seen it used interchangeably with Jihadist (quite poorly I think). Mr rnddude (talk) 05:22, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

At the moment there is a hotchpotch of groups using Islam as a justification for their political goals. This creates a problem when assigning a motive to a bombing or mass shooting, because it is all too easy to fall into traps like "all Muslims are terrorists/Islam is a violent religion" etc. Most Muslims are just as sick of this sort of behavior as everyone else. Again, I would say that the title and format of this article are flawed because they fail to allow for any nuances in why people are doing the things that they do.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:31, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

What of COMMONNAME? Islamist/Islamic seems to be what these acts are referred to as, not Jihadist. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:34, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

This is a long standing problem. Islamist is one of the most common words used to describe a hybrid of political and religious causes. Radical forms of Islam have no separation of church and state, which is why Islam often gets the blame for the actions of radical Islam.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:42, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

It is a bit of a pain trying to meaningfully distinguish Islamist and Jihadist, and yes, Islamist is far more commonly used now. I think Ianmacm made a valid point, Islamist suggests Islam (in a general sense) which suggests Muslims (in a general sense). Jihadist suggests Jihad which suggests militant Islamic uprising, which suggests some Muslims (radical Islam). That however is OR and thus not encyclopaedic. So, what do? Mr rnddude (talk) 05:47, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

So, what do? - Stay with Islamist, I suppose, per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:GREATWRONGS, until the news media wake up and smell the 21st century. I'm prepared to withdraw my objection. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:16, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Sometimes, we just have to take it on the chin, even if it seems stupid to us. I agree, Jihadist and Islamist are different things, but the media is happy to cling to whatever generates views, so to must we, the not ignorant ignorant. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:20, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

And, as just explained in a different thread, Islamism is "quite distinct from Islam as a religion". Who knew?? ―Mandruss ☎ 09:17, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm worried that this article risks becoming a WP:COATRACK for people who think that all Muslims are terrorists, like this user on my talk page.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:28, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Seems like a well formulated and articulated opinion. (Sarcasm, for anybody who is unsure of it). Mr rnddude (talk) 09:32, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Such people do exist, but a bigger problem is users racing off to this article to add an example to the list on the basis of less than clear cut sourcing. The 2016 Istanbul airport attack is an example of this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:36, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Gotta love it when they can't spell the word they're spouting off about. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:51, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

You do realize that Islamism does not equal Islam and that as a movement they are partly reactionary conservatives and partly Islamic revival supporters, right? The comparison with the Crusades is rather poor as not all Islamists dream of territorial expansion, but the closest-related concepts are the full rejection of the separation of church and state (since they want their religion to actually dominate the state and dictate its policies) and support for theocracy, since they want all political authority to derive from the teachings and orders of their deity.

Contrast with the likes of Ba'athism, which is a secular political ideology which at least nominally promotes socialism and social progress. (Despite the Ba'athist regimes actually being authoritarian and having some strong similarities with fascism). Or Nasserism which is mostly secular in ideology and promotes modernisation and industrialisation as goals. Dimadick (talk) 09:38, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

As I've already said, the biggest problem is the complete lack of separation of church and state in radical Islam. This means that the actions of a government or political movement are seen as directly linked to Islam. Then all Muslims get the blame for the actions of the headbangers.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:42, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

The comparison to the Crusades was meant specifically for Jihadism, however, Islamism and Jihadism are somehow converging to be single thing as far as the media are concerned, so I take your point. Yes, most of us realize that Islamism is not Islam, some however seem to have missed the memo and so we get messages such as "all Muslims are terrorists", per IanMacm. I am however glad to have a clearer picture of Islamism, thank you. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:45, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude: "some however seem to have missed the memo and so we get messages such as "all Muslims are terrorists", per IanMacm" - Mr rnddude

Could I get a source on who said that "all Muslims are Terrorists"? I can't seem to find it on this talk page. R00b07 (talk) 16:00, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, somebody said it on my talk page, although they could do with spelling lessons. At the moment, this page is being visited by a range of people who have heard via Breitbart that Wikipedia is run by liberals who are reluctant to say that the Orlando shooting was an Islamic terror attack. The reality is that the debate is about whether this is the best or only description of what happened, bearing in mind similar cases such as the Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood shooting.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:16, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the source on the guy who said "all Muslims are Terrorists".

"At the moment, this page is being visited by a range of people who have heard via Breitbart that Wikipedia is run by liberals who are reluctant to say that the Orlando shooting was an Islamic terror attack. - ianmacm

Without a doubt. But plenty of people, like me, came from other sites who were commenting on the Breitbart Article. Not everyone who is saying "Yes" in the vote is a Angry Breitbart Reader. I know you never said that, but I'm just giving some context on where I'm coming from.

"The reality is that the debate is about whether this is the best or only description of what happened..." - ianmacm

Here are a list of Legit Sources that I compiled from another "Yes" voter. It's undeniable on whether or not this was an Islamist attack. (http://pastebin.com/GCaAwY7k) R00b07 (talk) 19:08, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Your most damning piece of evidence doesn't exist anymore. Check the link. Your second piece of evidence doesn't attribute Orlando to ISIS. Your third doesn't even mention Orlando. Your fourth also no longer exists. Your fifth makes no mention of ISIL or ISIS or Daesh. Your sixth also doesn't exist anymore. You've synthesized ideas from each individual article to draw a conclusion, per WP:SYNTH this is OR. See the problem. So let me flatly deny your allegation, it is not undeniable that this was an Islamist attack. You need to distinguish between Islamist and Islamic, an Islamist attack refers to an attack from an Islamist organization or one of its proponents, Omar claimed to be a proponent of ISIS but there's a problem. The problem is he's an angry violent criminal, he's not a reliable source to base claims off, the comparison to aliens is being made for a reason. A less then stable state of mind is not one to be sourced from, so we wait. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:43, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry have to re=ping you due typo, @R00b07:. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:44, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

It's okay (the pinging thing), I can't make a larger comment since I have to go somewhere soon. Here is are archived versions of the 1st source (the 911 call) and the 4th source (the motive) (https://web.archive.org/web/20160621131734/https://www.fbi.gov/tampa/press-releases/2016/investigative-update-regarding-pulse-nightclub-shooting) & (https://web.archive.org/web/20160701002424/http://www.democracynow.org/2016/6/15/headlines/orlando_survivor_says_shooter_wanted_us_to_stop_bombing_afghanistan), Don't know why they were removed, it's not like the 911 call or the motive changed all of the sudden. My point with the 2nd and 3rd source was that the CIA reported that ISIS is telling Jihadis to commit lone wolf attacks, and then Orlando happens and I have seen editors state that because it was a lone wolf attack, it can't be Islamic Terror. The last two sources debunk the notion that he was gay, as you can see several users that have made that claim. I have even someone here refuse to change his position, despite it being clear misinformation. R00b07 (talk) 20:54, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 2 July 2016

WP:DENY TimothyJosephWood 18:55, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Put Orlando back you bleeding heart PC scum 38.125.101.4 (talk) 07:05, 2 July 2016 (UTC)  Not done - RfC in progress. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:10, 2 July 2016 (UTC) There is already a discussion on this. As a member of the "bleeding heart PC scum" who is unsure about whether Orlando really was an Islamic terror attack or merely the work of another deranged U.S. loner who was able to buy an assault rifle so that he could take out his frustrations on innocent people, I would ask you to assume good faith before contributing.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:13, 2 July 2016 (UTC) Well, you totally don't sound like the sort of person who is deliberately "unsure" about this because it fits his political prejudices. 2601:602:9802:99B2:4C8C:7DAB:340E:C53F (talk) 07:40, 2 July 2016 (UTC) Well, you totally don't sound like the sort of person who is deliberately sure about this because it fits his political prejudices. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:41, 2 July 2016 (UTC) RfC in progress. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:44, 2 July 2016 (UTC) It's been going on for ten days and has dozens and dozens of votes. What exactly are we waiting for to close it and stop the bleeding already? 2601:602:9802:99B2:4C8C:7DAB:340E:C53F (talk) 07:48, 2 July 2016 (UTC) The yelling to stop long enough for somebody to slog through it all. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:50, 2 July 2016 (UTC) Discussed at #Call for WP:SNOW close. The standard length for an RfC is 30 days, and the world will not end if we wait that long to include Orlando in this list. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:51, 2 July 2016 (UTC) Dear anti bleeding heart PC scum contributor; Edit requests are based on suggested changes, have a go at reading the instructions before you post will you. Although you pass the state unambiguously part with flying colours, so... congratz? Mr rnddude (talk) 07:28, 2 July 2016 (UTC) Anyone vandalizing the article (after the Breitbart piece) while an RfC is in progress is making it a million times harder on themselves. Now the "No" Voter has the world's easiest argument to make -> "See, look at the vandalism, the article should stay the way it is, at least until the vandalism stops". (Even if someone states "it's just 'til the Vandalism stops", it will most likely remain that way, until somehow it becomes a hot topic again (I Doubt It Will)). Let the fact-based consensus determine what is most correct for what direction the article should take. R00b07 (talk) 15:47, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 2 July 2016

WP:DENY TimothyJosephWood 15:48, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Adding the June 12, 2016 Islamic Terror attack perpetrated by Radical Muslim Omar Mateen in Orlando, Florida. No matter what this administration is trying to call it, he did it in the name of "allah", and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi of the Islamic State. Dodgedude99 (talk) 15:11, 2 July 2016 (UTC) Please see the various discussions above and participate there.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:38, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Orlando double standard?

Ok I really don't understand why this is so difficult. I am going to make this simple. The Boston Marathon Bombings were caused by 2 brothers with no found affiliation to a terrorist group but have a declared motive, same with San Bernardino except they had no clear declared motive (maybe offended by the Christmas baby shower). Then we come to the Orlando attack, the perpetrator during the three crisis negotiations and on Facebook posts declared his motive but was likely not affiliated with a group. Terrorism by definition is "the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims." They were of radical islamic political aims. Thus all three are islamic terrorist attacks. As a result of this logical reasoning the Orlando attack should also be included on this list.ShadowDragon343 (talk) 00:55, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

There's currently an RfC with it's own lively discussion section. I don't understand the need to open multiple new discussions as if that would somehow short circuit the ongoing dispute resolution process. As has been pointed out before, the inclusion criteria for this list article are vague, so one would expect different interpretations about what should be included.- MrX 01:06, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

While discussions like this may have been necessary in the following days as more was revealed, I strongly feel that time has passed and all the RfC's have turned into is a book publishable amount of back and forth between countless users on one side who support and in particular you, Mandruss, and IanMacM on the other who don't. This all with little advancement on the subject whatsoever. There was less support to include San Bernardino than there is for Orlando while the latter suddenly out of all them on the list meets this sudden big resistance to include it to where the page is protected. Out of what 110 something subjects on this article Orlando makes up over a fifth of them!!! ShadowDragon343 (talk) 04:24, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

The RfC has been opened, until it is closed there's no point in opening several other sections to discuss the same thing. For whatever reason, there is opposition to include and support to include. If the support inclusion side has presented better arguments, then the RfC will acknowledge this when closing and adding Orlando to the article. There's nothing to be done before then. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:44, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

We let RfCs run their course (usually 30 days), unless there is good reason to close early (I assume that "good reason" is established by consensus like anything else, and that consensus does not exist, as seen in prior discussion). People need to cease accusations of obstructionism by others who understand Wikipedia process and believe in respecting it. If you can't observe WP:AGF, you are more problem than solution. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:02, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure if we're ever going to create a situation where everyone is happy over this. The "list of..." format of this article is flawed, because it fails to allow for any nuances in what may have caused the incident.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:23, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Unless you propose to nominate this for deletion (and good luck with that), I feel the best available option is to divide into at least three sub-lists (within this article, not a split), such as discussed at #Thinking about a more dynamic style of presentation. As I've said there, I wouldn't oppose including Orlando in the third sub-list described there. With more support for that concept, we just might be able to reach a resolution at-least-acceptable to most, something we didn't expect. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:30, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

As the RFC above shows, it is already "acceptable to most" that we add this Islamist terror attack to the list and get on with our lives. If you want to work on a new version of the page, go for it, but there's no reason to leave this list in its current inaccurate state in the meantime. 2601:602:9802:99B2:243D:BE0E:E170:563F (talk) 06:36, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Over the past few days I've also been reminded of this incident in Moscow in February 2016. The fact that the woman was shouting "Allahu Akbar" and threatening to blow herself up is a lot like Omar Mateen, but a court ordered an investigation into her sanity.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:25, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Constructive discussion, or not

My suggestion is that established editors simply ignore confrontational comments from users who have almost no experience with Wikipedia editing, whose greatest qualification for participation is a computer with Internet access, and who are only here to cause trouble in the misguided, very POV belief that they are doing something good for this encyclopedia. This is not what constructive discussion looks like, and we shouldn't encourage it by responding to it. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:04, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Malik Shabazz and User:MShabazz are coming perilously close to sock puppetry, despite notices on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MShabazz Mrdthree (talk) 10:10, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

As far as I can see, Malik Shabazz and MShabazz have never denied being the same person. Also, just to clarify, anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion on this page, but personal attacks and walls of text not related to article improvement will be removed in line with the talk page guidelines.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:27, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

With respect for your opinion, I feel that one should know something about Wikipedia editing principles and policies before coming here and expecting to interact as an equal with those who do. This is not stuff you pick up with casual exposure, or quickly. It takes years of study and experience. I've been at it heavily for three years and there are still many areas of this work where I wouldn't presume to tread. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:37, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

There have been about 600 posts on this topic. About 200 of these posts are made by 5 Novoters: User:Malik Shabazz (19), User:MrX (23), User: Ianmacm (24), User:Mr rnddude (65) and User: Mandruss (76). Perhaps these 5 people can get together and post a cogent well referenced (sourced) No case.Mrdthree (talk) 10:47, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

1/3 of the topic posts have been made by 5 (No) Voters? I really hope that well reasoned arguments from both sides will heard out when WP:CON is reached. Kinda scary. R00b07 (talk) 20:29, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Either Mrdthree doesn't know how to count or he's intentionally lying. I doubt if I've made more than six or so comments about the Orlando shooting but my name is all over this talk page. I'll leave it to you to figure out why. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:46, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

The nay positions are not identical any more than the yea positions are identical. Neither group is like a political party with the need to present a single platform. Our individual positions are stated in our !votes. Cogent or not is obviously a matter of one's perspective. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:54, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

There is a learning curve on Wikipedia and everyone gets it wrong when they are a newbie. What has gone wrong here is that an external website - Breitbart - has encouraged its readers to believe that Wikipedia is deliberately hiding that fact that Omar Mateen claimed an Islamist motive for the Orlando shooting, which it isn't. Anyone who has been round the block on Wikipedia knows that articles involving religion, particularly Islam, can set off heated debates very quickly, which is why many of them have a one revert rule instead of the usual WP:3RR. At the moment, this article is fully protected so that only administrators can edit it. This is due to expire later today, but if it leads to a carousel of edit warring about the Orlando shooting, it may return.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:57, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

There is a learning curve on Wikipedia and everyone gets it wrong when they are a newbie. - True, and some of them understand that they are newbies and refrain from aggressive, know-it-all stances against experienced editors. I'm speaking only of those who don't. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:02, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Aggressive nonsense will be removed in accordance with the talk page guidelines. I still don't think that the root cause of the problem with this article has been tackled, which is the Boolean logic used in the "list of..." format. This permits only two truth values; 1 (it was an Islamist attack) and 0 (it wasn't an Islamist attack). This type of logic is wholly unsuitable for political and religious situations where a range of motives may have been involved.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:14, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

The sub-lists remove the binary. With them, it becomes, (1) It was an Islamist-sponsored terrorist attack, (2) It was a clear-cut Islamist-inspired terrorist attack, (3) It was an attack with loose and/or ambiguous connection to Islamist terrorism, apparently involving other factors and motivations, or (4) It was not an Islamist terrorist attack. Granularity doubled. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:20, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, I think the article needs to move in this direction.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:27, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I stated the other day that I think it likely we'll hold a referendum and change how this list works and the inclusions to it before the RFC is closed; and thereby make it moot - honestly, the decision about Orlando isn't even important in my thoughts in comparison because doing this (adding clearer categories) would be a massive improvement to the list in the first place and should be done regardless. I'd remove the "clear-cut" from Islamist-inspired only because the category (sponsored/inspired/ambiguous/not Islamist) should be defined solely by the sources, and "clear-cut" is very context/perspective heavy - best to not add additional define rules on our end. Not that I think you were trying to (or that we would once the change was made) I'm assuming it was more a context reference to the current Orlando debacle, but just stating to make that distinction. If there's someone willing to do the heavy lifting, perhaps sandbox the changes and we can replace/vote to replace with the new changes after the RFC? (only to give time for the current mess to end) SpeakerOfReason (be gentle!) 12:07, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

The sublists are a great example of SYNTH and OR. Luckily we have reliable sources to remove our guess work.[13] It's overwhelming. Are their any sources that refute it was an islamist terrorist attack or is this a strawman holdout for an action that will never come? What secondary sourcing is absent or conflicting that we can't reflect a list generated by the NY Times and backed up by a number of other sources? --DHeyward (talk) 12:12, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

The sublist argument isn't about the Orlando shooting other then the fact it's being decided for inclusion on this page - and it wouldn't be SYNTH or OR as long as the category it falls under is defined by the sources; which our articles and their inclusion on this list should be in the first place. A majority of sources claim it was ISIL that planned it, it's Islamist sponsored, if it's lone wolf (such as Mateen) it's Islamist inspired, etc etc. This, as normal, would be sourced and their category defined by those sources, not us. Plenty of the articles/news stories on this list already make these distinctions about the attacks, this list has thus far just ignored the categorical types. SpeakerOfReason (be gentle!) 12:20, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I was unsure about the OR/SYNTH and asked for comments about that yesterday at #Thinking about a more dynamic style of presentation. None received there yet. Without the sub-lists we're back to square one and waiting for the RfC to run its course. The arguments against inclusion in the list as it stands now are stated in the !votes and I'm certainly not going to re-hash mine here, once again. If you're right, the closer should close in your favor. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:25, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I mean I don't think it's OR/SYNTH only because those distinctions are already made by the sources, and just not being used here - I suppose it might be better if the category terms were more "true to source" so to speak to make it clear what they mean and that the distinction isn't set by us, but it would definitely be a profound improvement to the article overall to have them. SpeakerOfReason (be gentle!) 12:31, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

If it's unclear, I was replying to DHeyward, as indicated by my indent level per WP:THREAD. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:34, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh no I know, just wanted to chime in again on the OR/SYNTH issues in support - and add more clarity to it in doing so. Perhaps instead of separate sub-lists a color code chart with the x-axis as the categories? As well as a second color (orange?) if the source for a particular article states possible but unknown in a category? For example, green under inspired for Orlando, with orange in ambiguous or other motivations since there are plenty enough sources (even if out of date for the facts of the case) that state that possibility. SpeakerOfReason (be gentle!) 12:45, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately parts of the mainstream media have fallen into the binary yes/no trap as well. Mateen ranted about having an Islamist motive but people who have done similar things have been subjected to tests to determine their competence, such as Robert Lewis Dear, Jr.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:58, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I support Mandruss' proposal to break this list into three categories. If we do this, I would withdraw my opposition in the RfC because the Orlando shooting would obviously fit into one of those categories. I also think all entries should be presented in a sortable table format.- MrX 13:03, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I mean that always has been (and will be true) for things like this - I think the categories can still be done, but if an article doesn't have any sources that go beyond the binary or state a clear motivation, I'd just leave the boxes blank (speaking of adding a color chart here, since I think it would work better then sublists and could be applied to the existing page as minimal columns before description) and let the article and its sources speak for itself, and only code the ones that are sourced positively in the categories. SpeakerOfReason (be gentle!) 13:07, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

When Daniel M'Naghten attempted to assassinate British Prime Minister Robert Peel in 1843, it led to a debate about how a person's state of mind contributed to their actions known as the M'Naghten rules which are still in use today. After the Killing of Jo Cox the court requested a report on the competence of the man accused of killing her. In this incident in Moscow in February 2016, Gyulchekhra Bobokulova was shouting "Allahu Akbar" (God is Great) I am a terrorist. I am your death" which led to her being detained in psychiatric care. One of the first things that a U.S. court would have wanted to know is whether Omar Mateen was mentally competent, but his death has prevented this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:24, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

mrdthree, I'd like to point out, while I am very active here on this page, I am not "no" voter, I haven't voted, nor do I intend to. The impression that I am a no voter doesn't surprise me since much of my discussion has been on the side of the no, but I am equally amenable to both side. I just need one of them to convince me. Thank you, Mr rnddude (talk) 18:36, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss: "My suggestion is that established editors simply ignore confrontational comments"

First off, of course everyone should ignore "confrontational comments". But I implore you not to ignore legitimate concern that use sources and logic, and it doesn't matter if this concern was raised because of the Breitbart article, discussion of the Breitbart article, or if it was raised by your neighbor named Dennis. The point is, any opinion that is civil, and uses evidence and reasoned logic to further it's claims, should heard out by ALL wikipedians, big or small, new or old.

" from users who have almost no experience with Wikipedia editing, whose greatest qualification for participation is a computer with Internet access, and who are only here to cause trouble in the misguided, very POV belief that they are doing something good for this encyclopedia."

Oh, so now consensus is not formed by sources and arguments, but by seniority on Wikipedia. I see. Apparently starting now, not only the sources have to have their good faith examined, but the users as well. Oh wait, that's not true at all. WP:CON, AGF -> [[14]]

"This is not what constructive discussion looks like, and we shouldn't encourage it by responding to it."

Nope. Look at Consensus and Assume Good Faith, please, and then get back to me. R00b07 (talk) 20:13, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

R00b07; I believe Mandruss was referring to pointless banging of the head against the wall. What I mean by that is that repeated discussion over the same points with the same people and going in circles is a waste of time. Their comments were not directed towards any particular user, but, to the users who came here to yell at the people who have a differing opinion. A few users have requested that procedure be ignored. Consensus is not determined by yes and no votes, R00b07, its determined based on the merits of the argument. Both sides have given their argument, and, unless anybody introduces something new, there isn't much to discuss further.

Let me try to put each of his arguments into perspective.

1. "Established editors simply ignore confrontational comments"; well refer to the protected edit requests where some IPs and editors have gone so far as to call people stupid for their opinion.

2. "from users who have almost no experience with Wikipedia editing, whose greatest qualification for participation is a computer with Internet access, and who are only here to cause trouble in the misguided, very POV belief that they are doing something good for this encyclopedia."; Those same people, the ones who came here, and presented their argument in the form of insults. The comment was poorly phrased, it alienates new users who have an opinion and that is not the environment Wikipedia wants to establish, I imagine it was born mostly out of frustration rather then intent to alienate.

3. "This is not what constructive discussion looks like, and we shouldn't encourage it by responding to it."; again, referring to the people that are here to argue and throw a fuss because they don't it.

I don't agree with the way Mandruss is going about saying it, so let me phrase it in my own words.

If you are here to present an argument for your case, and to accept that others have their own opinion and a right to that opinion, feel free to stay and contribute to the discussion. If not, there's plenty of pages that need attention, plenty of topics to improve, plenty of other discussions to be involved with. I personally left this discussion more or less yesterday to focus on a more interesting topic to myself, and am waiting for a good B-class review, may even take it to GA. Have a nice day Mr rnddude (talk) 20:31, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Sourced Discussion on Orlando; No comments without sources please

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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