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)

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

• 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)

• 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)
• 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)

• 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. ―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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:ce95:57b0:549d:5e23:e8eb:3703 (talk) 00:33, 25 June 2016‎ (UTC)

How much stronger evidence could there be than from the perpetrator's own lips?Dansan99 (talk) 00:42, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

• Strong Yes. I don't understand the argument that he may have had multiple motivations for the attack precluding the attack from being listed here; as long as one of the motivations was Islamist, then it ought to be included on this list and it certainly appears to be the main, if not only, motivation. I also don't see pledging allegiance to conflicting groups as an issue either since they are all, bottom line, Islamist groups or individuals. --Local hero ^talk 17:34, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

• No. There is evidence that Mateen had pledged allegiance to both ISIS and Hezbollah, two groups which happen to be fighting against each other in the Syrian Civil War. His political and religious ideologies are confused, and his motivations for the shooting remain unclear as established by reliable sources. OT, how long is this article going to get before it gets broken up? <> Alt lys er svunnet hen (talk) 04:25, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)
• Yes Same as San Bernardino, radicalized natural born turned Islamic homophobic terrorist. The FBI says claims he was gay are considered unsubstantiated (not completely ruled out but not likely either).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)

• Only when 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)

• 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. If the Charleston church shooting can be described as being inspired by racial hatred and characterized as white supremacy as a result of Roof's online activities prior to the shooting—despite the assailant having no prior associations with racial terror groups—this it is only logical to attribute inspiration for this attack to Islamism. The removal is frankly suspect. --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)

• 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)

• 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

  Your vote is in the wrong place @BHC: I suggest you move it to the appropriate subsection (in this case 6.1 Survey). Mr rnddude (talk) 23:26, 30 June 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)

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)

Real Talk

• 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)
              • 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. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:53, 1 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)

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

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)