Talk:2011 Frankfurt Airport shooting

Attacks in 2011 category
The article in question is already listed in the category "Terrorist incidents in 2011". This is a sub-category of "Attacks in 2011". Therefore re-addition of "Attacks in 2011" category means double listing of this article, is an unnecessary thing to do. Therefore, I have removed the "Attacks in 2011" category. Please reach a consensus before re-adding it per WP:BRD.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:15, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Lonewolf terrorism
The attack is covered as terrorism by a multitude of sources - e.g. - ''Weimann, Gabriel. "Terrorist migration to social media." Geo. J. Int'l Aff. 16 (2015): 180., McCauley, Clark, Sophia Moskalenko, and Benjamin Van Son. "Characteristics of lone-wolf violent offenders: A comparison of assassins and school attackers." Perspectives on Terrorism 7.1 (2013): 4-24., Nesser, Petter. "Research note: single actor terrorism: scope, characteristics and explanations." Perspectives on Terrorism 6.6 (2012): 61-73., Simeunović, Dragan. "Homegrown terrorism in the United States and in the EU." Review of International Affairs 1141 (2011): 5-18., Barnes, Beau D. "Confronting the one-man wolf pack: Adapting law enforcement and prosecution responses to the threat of lone wolf terrorism." BUL Rev. 92 (2012): 1613.'' - and a whole multitude of additional sources (as evident in event a simple search for "Arid Uka". The perpetrator was convicted for murder. The lack of a terrorism charge (which - in many jurisdictions is non-existent or relevant for prosecution (e.g. murder being a more significant charge)) is not of material significance here - in many jurisdictions it is outright false to say that "terrorism is a specific type of crime." (and in many others - simply irrelevant, this being a minor charge). Considering multiple high-quality sources refer to this as lone-wolf terrorism and that the individual was convicted (with the German prosecution detailing his radicalization in trial) - WP:CRYBLP is not a rationale for removal here. Icewhiz (talk) 06:58, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , . Icewhiz (talk) 06:59, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm going to disagree that The lack of a terrorism charge is not of material significance here. This was not judged a terrorist act under German legal code. Perhaps it should have been (perhaps O. J. Simpson should have been convicted of murder?), but that's not for us or anyone else to say – we leave that to the courts. TompaDompa (talk) 08:30, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree there. Was posting a response to the initial message when I got an editing conflict. Mentioning OJ Simpson, especially in terms of him having not been convicted of murder, is incongruity, and just plain "whataboutism". Terrorism on Wikipedia is not defined solely by charges laid against a defendant, or the conviction thereof. Terrorism is established by reputable sources and experts, though obvious weight is given in sentencing. Some terrorism suspects in the US are labeled as terrorists in their lede because it obviously is so, and is supported, even without a conviction as such. There are examples in Europe too. I don't think CRYBLP actually applies here. Quintus Symmachus (talk) 08:45, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * - whom are you disagreeing with? Myself or TompaDompa? (confused by the indent level vs. the actual text). Icewhiz (talk) 09:04, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Apologies. Was disagreeing with Tompa. Thought that would have been discernible from the context. Even though it will offput this convo, I indented properly to make sure it was a bit more clear. Quintus Symmachus (talk) 09:20, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The source cited above by TompaDompa reads - "The killing of two American military personnel at Frankfurt airport by a religiously-inspired individual in March 2011 is not a terrorist attack according to German legislation, although the incident clearly carried some such characteristics.". Per this europarl study - "In practice, someone is suspected of being a terrorist in two ways. Firstly, if they have committed terrorism-related crimes in the past or are suspected of having being involved in such a crime. Secondly, if they are in contact with terrorist organisations either in Germany or abroad. It is also considered suspicious if a person joins or supports terrorist organisations, which can in some situations be a crime in itself." - so this charge in Germany (echoing some other countries) is membership/affiliation mainly with terrorist groups and excludes by definition Lone wolf terrorism (which is seen as terrorism by most). Clearly definitions of terrorism vary quite a bit across legal codes, however we should not be bound by a country having a partial definition (e.g. if in Germany only membership in recognized proscribed terror groups leads to a charge - some countries have no terrorism offenses at all - it would be far reaching to say that a country without any terrorist code leads to a terrorism mention ban on Wikipedia (when covered as such by RSes)). Icewhiz (talk) 09:45, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The O. J. Simpson comparison is not as out of left field as it might seem at first glance. The parallel is that it's important to recognize that he was found not guilty of murder but was found liable for wrongful death, and that it would therefore be libellous and a WP:BLPCRIME violation to refer to him as a murderer. As I have argued before in edit summaries: Terrorism is a specific type of crime. The perpetrator was convicted of murder and attempted murder, but not of any terrorist crimes. Classifying the shooting as an act of terrorism is therefore a WP:BLPCRIME violation. It would be like classifying a killing as a murder when the perpetrator was convicted of manslaughter. TompaDompa (talk) 14:05, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree with Quintus. Multiple reputable sources report this incident as terrorism (one more example: The New York Times). "Lone wolf" terrorism - carried out by a self-radicalized individual, unaffiliated with any organization and previously unknown to the authorities is still terrorism (and presented as terrorism by security expert in this 2016 article from Deutsche Welle) Mcrt007 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:03, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

The judge said in his ruling that it was a terrorist attack. That resolves the WP:BLPCRIME objections I had. TompaDompa (talk) 23:47, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * OK. On a general note - most commenters here do not view a judicial decision as a requirement for terror classification (when RSes support terror) for a subject convicted for crimes (in this case murder and attempted murder) for his actions (which resolve the BLPCRIME issue).Icewhiz (talk) 04:46, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I would include myself in that regard. It seems relatively straightforward, per WP:TERRORISM and the various discussions across multiple pages, RfCs that give some semblance of a lodestone, and so on. Reliable sources confer the title, though a governmental agency or a judicial authority effectively clinches the argument. One man's freedom fighter may be a terrorist, and we'll represent both POVs according, but the WP:LABEL applies when the shoe fits. Standards are of course different for entities as opposed to individuals. I was a bit surprised to see this discussion happening on this subject, to be honest. Obviously we have to tread carefully with BLPs, but this seemed perfectly in accordance with policy. Nice to put it it rest though.


 * Ah, I forgot to mention something I had intended to before. Charges laid against a suspect by prosecutors, and sometimes municipal authorities or police as complainants, are often not a good guide for applying the label. They go with whatever charges they know will be relatively non-contentious, are more likely to provide a conviction, and especially those which can be proved by forensic evidence... Without being subject to partiality or appealing to a particular worldview. Especially in jury trials, though magistracy rulings or plea deals likewise tend to go by the same guidelines. The objective of a prosecutor is to obtain a conviction, not apply a label. Charges should never be used as a primary descriptor, aside from statement of fact as in "he/she was charged with" per BLP:CRIME.  Quintus Symmachus (talk) 08:21, 20 December 2018 (UTC)