Talk:Lone wolf (terrorism)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Terrorism  
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on terrorism, individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Untitled[edit]

Hello! Anyone want to list terrorist acts by people other than Israelis? For the last five years, I can give you ten Palestinian suicide bombings for every one Israeli incident listed on this page. This page is a gross violation of WP's policy of neutral point of view. 129.98.212.47 04:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but the Palestinian suicide bombers are not leaderless and have a definite political goal, making it incorrect to call their acts lone-wolf terrorism. -Toptomcat 18:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The imformation in here is factually incorrect. The Real IRA is a splinter group of the Provisional IRA, and not connected with the Provisionals. The two are separate groups, and the Real IRA is not a cover name for the Provisionals. A much better example would be the Red Hand Defenders (loyalist cover name) or the IRA's anti-dealer group, whose name escapes me at the minute... Will edit it to a higher standard as of tomorrow. - Supersheep

Personal essay[edit]

This article looks like a personal essay. Can anyone provide a citation that the term "independent terrorist actor" is used? A Google check seems to reveal mostly WP mirror sites. The term "lone wolf" is used more often.

Secondly, the section about Vietnam and the IRA was either false or incomprehensible. I've made it invisible; pasting it below in case others think there is some merit in it. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:38, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

This was true in the case of Vietnam, where the US government undertook a large terrorist operation to exacerbate the pre-existing civil conflict in Vietnam, unbeknownst to the larger American public (the cause which the public was led to support was "anti-communism"). Also the Omagh bombing in Ireland, where the "Real IRA"—a splinter group from the more conciliatory IRA, killed 29 people in a bombing attack against Ulster Loyalist families—a completely radical action, according to the mainstream Republican view.

In the Palestinian territories, a similar (but more complex) situation exists where in addition to the large organizations there are several distinct factions (mostly based on clans and blood ties), under constant pressure by retaliatory actions from Israel, tend to be extremely divided about any immediate course of action—such that they can rarely or never act in a collective or controlled manner. Under stress, the choice between action and inaction tends to default to one between violence and protest. Violence, being far more decisive than moderation and discussion, tends to win out over discussion.

The other problem with this article is that it doesn't make it clear that the connection between the individuals and the groups are alleged; that is, that it is alleged that these individuals purposely break connection with the group so that the group can then claim they had no knowledge. A less conspiracy oriented view is that these people truly do act on their own, without the guidance or approval of anyone.

I've added all the people cited for now, but the problems with this article remain. Who has designated these individuals as "Independent terrorist actors", and who has documented their arming and training by various groups, then purposeful break of connectsions? The original research in this article needs to be fixed with careful citation. Jayjg (talk) 20:57, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think this whole article needs sources. Who uses the term "lone wolf terrorism"? Do mentally ill people qualify? Do people kind-of-linked-but-not-really to formal organisations count? I'm not saying I'm sceptical of the concept: it looks very plausible. But in principle, plausible fiction is more insidious than obvious nonsense. jnestorius(talk) 14:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

John Allen Muhammad, a terrorist?[edit]

While I know, and also partly understand different reasons for not agreeing on a definition on terrorism, I find it strange that John Allen Muhammad can be classified as one in this article. If one doesn't include a political goal or something along those lines, many criminals can be defined as terrorist, and thus only help to obscure an already difficult and complex concept. -- 09:00, 22. Sept 2005

No, he wasn't a "terrorist" in the way Americans think of the work (as bug-eyed foreigners wearing winter coats on a 90-degree day), but he did go out and shoot people in the vicinity of the nation's capital, and no one's going to argue that he didn't spread "terror" throughout the area. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.165.87.40 (talkcontribs) 02:29, January 31, 2006 (UTC)

It's poor, but it's a notable subject. There is plenty of info on cell terrorism out there, but not much on this. I vote to keep, and let it be expanded. [User:stargate70]

He's definitely a terrorist; he did what he did in order to incite terror, which is more or less the definition of terrorism. Like McVeigh though, he wasn't a lone wolf; he had an accomplice (though, in the case of McVeigh, there's some amount of evidence the greater white supremacist movement might be related). Titanium Dragon 23:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

New Lead[edit]

Looking at the history of this article I can understand why this information was missing, but IMHO it was a gross oversight. "Lone-wolf" in this context came out of the US white supremacist movement, and the original "lone-wolves" actually were self-identified as such. As far as I can tell, law enforcement and media use of "lone wolf" to refer generically to single-actor terrorists followed this usage.--Saswann 03:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Wolf trans.gif[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Wolf trans.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Autobiographic Detail[edit]

The present writer, with the benefit of having lived many years beyond Col. Amoss, has taken his theories and expounded upon them. Col. Amoss feared the Communists. This author fears the federal government. Communism now represents a threat to no one in the United States, while federal tyranny represents a threat to everyone . The writer has joyfully lived long enough to see the dying breaths of communism, but may, unhappily, remain long enough to see the last grasps of freedom in America.

This probably speaks for itself. I kind of want to put lots of "citation needed" tags in there. Seriously though, what should be done to this passage. I also suspect that leaderless resistance has been around for a lot longer, if not studied or called such. If anybody has information on that, I think that could go in here.

Iain marcuson (talk) 07:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Mideast section - kahanists only?[edit]

Why is the Mideast section only mentioning kahanist israelis ? That seems to be a bit one sided —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.231.68 (talk) 12:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

First sentence of the article: "A Lone Wolf or Lone-wolf fighter is someone who commits violent/non-violent acts in support of some group, movement, or ideology, but does so alone, outside of any command structure.". Emphasis mine.Mr T (Based) (talk) 16:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Terrorism or crime?[edit]

What's the difference? Some of the examples sound like ordinary crimes to me, not terrorism. Either take some out or add why the people committed them, were they targeting a certain demographic or were just mad at the US or wherever the attacks were? Williamrmck (talk) 23:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Reverted name change[edit]

The different name would only really be appropriate to a somewhat different article than this one is... AnonMoos (talk) 00:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Incongruence between title and subject[edit]

The subject is parenthetically "(terrorism)" of the "lone wolf" form. However, the opening paragraph currently reads "A lone wolf or lone-wolf fighter is someone who commits violent and/or non-violent acts in support of some group, movement, or ideology, but does so alone, outside of any command structure." Now non-violent people who support any group, movement, or ideology are "terrorists," and if they do so alone, they're "lone wolf terrorists?" Not in America! 206.124.7.109 (talk) 18:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

For now, I've removed the "non-violent" claim. 206.124.7.109 (talk) 18:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Jared Loughner[edit]

I propose the deletion of Jared Loughner and the 2011 Tucson shooting from the list of Lone Wolves in the United States. As yet, there is no conclusive evidence that Loughner committed the crime "in support of some group, movement, or ideology." Though there is much speculation that heated political rhetoric may have contributed to Loughner's motivation, it remains just that - speculation. As it stands, most anecdotal evidence suggests the crime was one committed by a mentally ill individual with no clear motivation, outside of the delusional.Zengakuren (talk) 07:34, 15 January 2011 (UTC) Agreed, we should keep him off the list until the full investigation and trial are all completed before adding a suspected LWT sub section without all the facts presented to the public off this list. I feel we should keep all, future, current cases off this list till the conclusion of the case.Peacekeeper 1234 14:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peacekeeper 1234 (talkcontribs)

Loughner had a political ideology, and he committed his crime in support of it. He believed that women should not hold positions of power,[1] he distrusted government and believed they controlled language and grammar to brainwash people, that the government was creating "infinite currency" without the backing of gold and silver, that George W. Bush was behind 9/11, and that NASA was faking spaceflights.[2] He had met Gabrielle Giffords at a event in 2007 where he asked her "What is government if words have no meaning?"[3] He felt she didn't answer him fully and started planning to assassinate her.[4]Freddiefreelance (talk) 13:55, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

References

name controversy[edit]

There is no assosciation between wolves and terrorists. A more descriptive word such as "solitary terrorism" would be more appropriate and carry much less emotional content which only serves to alarm people for no good reason. it also promotes hate towards wolves which is not good or correct in todays time of environmental activism. this word is not politically correct. 97.113.21.177 (talk) 07:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I belive you should look at the artical sources before making changes, namely the section in the artical sub-titled 'Origins of the term' and more to the point 'Current usage.' Particully current source #3. Plus external links all stating that lone wolf is the term used for this type of terrorism. The term has nothing to do with enviromentalism and this is not a forum to express your distaste in terminology. In other words, what name controversy?Peacekeeper 1234 14:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peacekeeper 1234 (talkcontribs)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Lone wolf (terrorism). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

YesY Archived sources have been checked N but failed to be useful/working

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:16, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Lone wolf (terrorism). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

YesY Archived sources have been checked to be working

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:56, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Original research, WP:BLP violations, and poorly sourced material[edit]

Most of this article is poorly sourced. There are several paragraphs without a single footnote. There are "conclusions" added by editors after the footnote, which indicates the source doesn't support the conclusion (known on Wikipedia as original research).

And the long list of "lone wolf terrorist attacks" is chock full of original research and WP:BLP violations, because very few of the sources refer to the perpetrators as "lone wolf terrorists". — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Qualification of certain attacks[edit]

NO ACTION:

Discussion already underway on Talk page, please restart if no consensus reached and other dispute resolution methods exhausted. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 21:15, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Do the 2016 Philadelphia police officer shooting and the 2016 Ohio machete attack qualify as lone-wolf terrorist attacks? Parsley Man (talk) 23:54, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


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

Why was this closed? There's a reason I started it. Parsley Man (talk) 22:06, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Third opinion on Lone wolf attacks[edit]

Do you think attacks removed in this edit, 2016 Philadelphia police officer shooting and the 2016 Ohio machete attack, are classified as lone wolf? Thank you. cc: E.M.Gregory (talk · contribs), Parsley Man (talk · contribs). Spirit Ethanol (talk) 23:01, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

"Being investigated/treated as terrorist attacks" and "being classified as terrorist attacks" are two very different things. The former means officials are investigating the events to see if there is a terrorism component to them and the motive (and therefore, treating it with the mindset that it is a terrorist attack), while the latter pretty much confirms that the event is a terrorist attack. In both cases, federal authorities are still investigating these events as terrorist attacks. In the Philadelphia shooting, Edward Archer was also claimed to be mentally ill, which could complicate his claim of support for ISIS, since it may just be the ranting of an insane person who doesn't know what he is talking about. In the Ohio attack, the perp is dead, so the only thing the FBI has to go off on right now is their 2011 investigation of him, and so far, we don't know much of anything about it other than he made some radical statements. Parsley Man (talk) 23:08, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
That's what they all say, criminal defense attorneys that is when asked to defend the indefensible; see, for example, Anders Behring Breivik. What else can defenders of men like Breivik, the attacker in the 2016 Philadelphia police officer shooting, or the 2016 Ohio machete attack say? However, not only does the insanity defense rarely succeed, it does not do what you seem to want it to do since even individuals diagnosed with schizophrenia and other serious mental illnesses often fail to meet the legal standards for diminished responsibility. It is, in other words, it is not only entirely possible for an individual to have a ideological commitment to an ideology (such as white supremacy, right to life, anarchism), to be a supporter of a radical political movement (such as Isis) ISIS, and to be diagnosed with a serious mental illness, and yet to be judged guilty by a court of law, it is commonplace.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:37, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Find reliable sources that describe the incidents as examples of lone wolf terrorism. Otherwise you're violating WP:NOR and WP:BLP. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:42, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Both articles are sourced and bluelinked.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:58, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Big deal. Which if the three sources [1][2][3] says the perpetrator was a lone wolf terrorist? Hint: None. The sources don't describe them as Israeli price tag attacks either. Why don't we include them at List of Israeli price tag attacks as well? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:10, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
How did Israel get dragged into this?E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:19, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
These perpetrators have as many sources identifying them as lone wolf terrorists as they do connecting them to Israeli price tag attacks: none. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:00, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
This is a discussion of two specific attacks, one in Philadelphia and the other in Columbus, Ohio. Please leave your personal obsession with Israel at the door.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:51, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Sources for 2016 Ohio machete attack as lone wolf terrorism: CNN: Machete-Wielding Attacker at Ohio Restaurant Considered Possible ‘Lone Wolf’ [4]; CBS: "CBS News homeland security correspondent Jeff Pegues reports that... law enforcement is concerned that this incident has the hallmarks of the type of so-called "lone wolf" terrorist attack" [5] more out there, of course.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:30, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Do you understand what "possible" means? And what WP:Verifiability requires? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:00, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
    • "Concerned" doesn't exactly mean they're confirming that it's a lone-wolf terrorist attack. They're just afraid it could be so. Parsley Man (talk) 03:18, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Useful CNN list of ISIL-inspired Lone Wolf attacks, including the 2 under discussion here: [6]. it gets updated regularly.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:13, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
    • How is that useful? It doesn't refer to any of the attackers as lone wolves. Please read WP:NOR. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 15:27, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Entries are required to meet the definition of a lone wolf attack: "someone who commits violent acts in support of some group, movement, or ideology, but who does so alone, outside of any command structure and without material assistance from any group. Although the lone wolf prepares and acts alone, the perpetrator may be influenced or motivated by the ideology and beliefs of an external group." There is no requirement that Sources must use the precise words "lone wolf" they can describe the attacker/attack with other words, such as "acted alone", "inspired by", "pledged alliegiance to", etc. Of course, if the attacker in Philadelphia or Columbus is later found to have gotten material assistance from ISIS, Al Qaeda or similar groups, the entries can be removed when that becomes clear. These investigations are both ongoing, and have established Islamist inspiration.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:47, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
If the source doesn't say "lone wolf", it's not an example of lone wolf terrorism. There's a policy against your approach: WP:No original research. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 16:04, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
I disagree. My interpretation constitutes reliable sourcing and follows the stipulations on what goes on this list. Let's both back off and let other editors weigh in.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:13, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Except your "reliable sourcing" always keep treating these incidents as possible lone-wolf terrorist attacks. There's nothing in anything you're providing that outwardly, explicitly confirms your claims. If they did, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now. Parsley Man (talk) 22:09, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment A lone wolf terrorist attack is an attack which numerous independent, reliable sources (BBC, Guardian, The Independent) have positively identified as a long wolf terrorist attack, sometimes based on information from authorities. AusLondonder (talk) 03:01, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment the sources don't need to mention specifically "lone wolf." They just need to mention terrorism and acted alone, that is the definition of a lone wolf. Sir Joseph (talk) 00:40, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Not according to our policies of WP:Verifiability, WP:No original research, and WP:Biographies of living persons. If it's not in the sources, you can't wave your hands and make it up. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 00:45, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
      • "A lone wolf or lone-wolf terrorist is someone who commits violent acts in support of some group, movement, or ideology, but who does so alone, outside of any command structure and without material assistance from any group." That's the definition of lone wolf, and that is all that is needed. If it's a terror act and it's alone without any assistance from a group, that is by definition a lone wolf attack. Sir Joseph (talk) 01:26, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Are you serious Sir Joseph? Haven't you heard about our policies such as No original research and verifiability? AusLondonder (talk) 01:34, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
The thing is, none of the officials involved in the respective investigations have concretely classified these incidents as lone-wolf attacks. None of the sources do either. Compare their coverage to that of the 2015 San Bernardino attack, including reactions from officials such as the President. Can you see a difference? Parsley Man (talk) 01:37, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
All I'm saying is that a lone wolf terrorist attack is a by definition item. It's an act of terror committed by one person not acting with the support of an organization. It doesn't need to be explicitly mentioned as such, we go by the definition. It has nothing to do with OR, if it is, then redo this whole article, because what then is a lone-wolf attack? Sir Joseph (talk) 02:53, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
To answer your question "what is a lone-wolf attack?" - a lone-wolf attack is an incident described my authorities and reliable sources as a lone-wolf attack. We don't do the defining. That's made clear at WP:OR AusLondonder (talk) 03:18, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Really? Not by the definition in the lead? So you won't object when I remove Baruch Goldstein from the list? Nothing in that ref calls him a lone-wolf. And I went through a few others and the refs cited don't say lone wolf. So the question is, is a lone wolf a person who commits an act of terror acting alone, or is it someone who is called a lone wolf in a reliable source? Sir Joseph (talk) 03:22, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
ahem nableezy - 15:25, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── We now see the bias of editors when they put back in items that don't mention "lone wolf" but will not allow other terror attacks into the article. Either an event has to have lone wolf mentioned in the news or it doesn't. You can't pick and choose. Sir Joseph (talk) 03:51, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Islam-Shooter-Stolen-Police-Gun-Jessie-Hartnett-Officer-364664771.html - Philly shooting is lone wolf, and this is one of many calling that event a terror event. Sir Joseph (talk) 04:05, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Excuse me, but I personally think the Philadelphia and Ohio incidents sound like lone-wolf terrorist attacks. There is no bias going on from my end. It's just that, from a neutral perspective, classifying these events as such right away sounds way too quick for me when the information we have right now brings conflicting perspectives. And I'm disregarding the refs. They cover what they can cover; all I'm concerned about is if these officials in the investigations or anyone else with an authority in the field of terrorism are calling them examples of lone-wolf terrorism. Last I heard, they continued treating it as a possibility (i.e. I keep seeing terms like "possible terrorist attack"). That kind of rhetoric puts me in doubt about this. There's always the possibility that they'll ultimately say, "No, this is not a terrorist attack, this is just some mentally ill individual who committed this attack and made this statement just to get some attention." The possibility that these suspects really are in fact mentally ill individuals just desiring attention (the mental health of the Philadelphia suspect has been heavily pronounced in reports as much as the terrorism angle) brings me into further doubt. Should we classify these events as such if these strong possibilities exist? And if we ultimately do classify them that way and the officials finally say they don't fit that criteria, should those categories be kept? With all of that in mind, does all of this qualify as WP:OR? That's just what I'm worried about, and why I want to hold off on categorizing these events. Parsley Man (talk) 07:10, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
In short, I agree with going by the lone-wolf definition, but there are other factors to consider as well before acting. Parsley Man (talk) 07:14, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Let it be known that while the 2009 Fort Hood shooting bears the hallmarks of lone-wolf terrorism (Nidal Hasan even shouted "Allahu Akbar!", viewed videos by Anwar al-Awlaki, and attended a mosque that had ties to some 9/11 hijackers), it's not being classified as such on Wikipedia, and there is a big controversy over whether it should be classified as such. Just a thought. Parsley Man (talk) 19:02, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
This site, http://www.terrorismanalysts.com/pt/index.php/pot/article/view/preventing-lone-wolf classifies it as a lone wolf attack. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:28, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
One source doesn't equate to immediate classification. Like I said, there's a controversy over classifying it as such. Some do say it is such or want it to be as such, and others (i.e. the United States Army) think quite the opposite. And read the last paragraph of the lede of the Nidal Hasan article. I'm willing to bet if you put his article and the Fort Hood shooting article under those categories, it'll probably be reverted. Parsley Man (talk) 20:42, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

YesY Archived sources have been checked to be working

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:04, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lone wolf (terrorism). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

YesY Archived sources have been checked to be working

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Original research, once again[edit]

Since we're still having this discussion:

  1. It is original research to include a person or event on the list as an example of lone-wolf terrorism when no reliable source describes it as an example of lone-wolf terrorism.
  2. It is a matter of using common sense and applying consensus when deciding whether to include a person or event described in reliable sources as a terrorist who acted alone, but without the exact words "lone wolf".

Removing somebody from the list because you're too damn lazy to click to the continuation of the source (on its first or second page), or click on their name and read the sources used in their Wikipedia article, is WP:POINTy. Ideally, this article should have sources for every name and incident. Realistically, most editors believe that sourcing somewhere in the encyclopedia is sufficient. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:51, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

No, sourcing "somewhere in the encyclopedia" is not sufficient when the matter is contested. Jonathunder (talk) 03:58, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on the below RFC if an item needs to be explicitly labeled as a lone wolf, or is an event committed by a sole person.... a lone wolf terror attack. Sir Joseph (talk) 04:00, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
I agree with you, Jonathunder, but above I described what most editors consider acceptable sourcing. I'm familiar with what WP:SAL#Citing sources says:
Stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines for articles, including verifiability and citing sources. This means statements should be sourced where they appear, they must provide inline citations if they contain any of the four kinds of material absolutely required to have citations.
When an inline citation is not required by a sourcing policy and editors choose to name more sources than strictly required, then either general references or inline citations may be used. It is generally expected that obviously appropriate material, such as the inclusion of Apple in the List of fruits, will not be supported by any type of reference, since plenty of good references exist at the article.
— Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:13, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

RFC for inclusion[edit]

There is consensus that the specific phrase "lone wolf" does not have to occur in the sources. There is, however, no clear consensus on a general definition of what counts as a lone wolf; this probably entails that each new incident has to be considered separately, as Irondome suggested. (non-admin closure) Dionysodorus (talk) 21:19, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Does an event need to have newssources/other sources explicitly mention "lone wolf" or does the fact that the event had a perpetrator act alone in support of a group, movement or ideology (or as the lead defines lone wolf). Sir Joseph (talk) 03:56, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment Obviously (to my thinking) the exact phrase "lone wolf" does not have to be the deciding factor here. Similar terms can suffice. Suggest we take the approach of subjecting new incidents to consensual discussion, and treat them as unique events and weigh wording used by Reliable sources reporting such incidents. Irondome (talk) 04:05, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I think any terror event that is properly sourced that the perpetrator acted alone but in support of a group, movement or ideology can be listed here. The news doesn't need to explicitly say lone wolf for the person to be a lone wolf. A person acting alone in support... is by definition a lone wolf. Sir Joseph (talk) 04:07, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  • This is a malformed question, and this RfC is therefore invalid. The question isn't whether sources describe "a perpetrator" as a "lone wolf"; as I wrote above in #Original research, once again, the question is whether sources describe the person as a terrorist. Only terrorists may be included in this article, not perpetrators. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:18, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree with Irondome and Sir Joseph, but I also think other issues need to be considered first before a classification is made, i.e. mental health. Parsley Man (talk) 08:51, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  • 'Comment following Malik, I think the context obliges editors to consider sources that specifically contextualize acts done by terrorists acting on their own. Whether then, the person is described literally as a lone wolf or by some cognate term or pariphrase such as a perpetrator acting according to his own darks is a secondary issue, as Irondome, I believe, implies.Nishidani (talk) 19:42, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment "Lone wolf" = any terrorist acting alone. We obviously done need the exact word "lone wolf". And as Sir Joseph - pointed out earlier on the talk page users on both sides of the argument are agreeing that terrorists are to be added even though they don't use the words "lone wolf". CaseeArt Talk 06:48, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree with Irondome above. Each case is different. As for Caseeart's comments, most terrorists work under the help or instruction of others, regardless of whether they perpetrate the act itself alone. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 13:10, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
  • , just to clarify, in that case it wouldn't be a lone wolf. A lone wolf doesn't get help from any organization. Sir Joseph (talk) 13:38, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree with CaseeArt "Lone wolf" = any terrorist acting alone. If you only use sources that use the term "Lone Wolf" It may exclude significant events where that term was never used in covering the event. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 20:54, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Pretty pointless question if it is not 100% established that these are RSd as terrorists. Clearly they are not lone wolves by our definition if there is any significant doubt about that. Pincrete (talk) 21:39, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Possible compromise[edit]

Due to the arguments being made by both sides of this discussion, I think I might have a potential solution to this: the creation of a suspected terrorists category or something of that nature. We can use it if certain attacks look like acts of terrorism but have not been confirmed by officials as such. Comments? Parsley Man (talk) 20:54, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Not a compromise but a BLP nightmare and likely violation in most cases.--TMCk (talk) 21:21, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
I agree with --TMCk (talk). The term Lone Wolf is common enough in English Language media coverage that the vast majority of readers will understand it in the context of a person acting alone. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 20:57, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

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