Talk:2018 Strasbourg attack

Category:Islamic terrorist incidents in 2018
An islamist commits a terrorist act in 2018, while shouting "“Allahu Akbar” before opening fire at a Christmas market. Yet, when I add the category "Islamic terrorist incidents in 2018", it is reverted. Why is that? Jeff5102 (talk) 15:55, 5 January 2019 (UTC)


 * As explained several times on this page; and still visible above: If you have a reliable source showing that this was 'part of Islamic terrorism', it should be given, and the claim stated, in the body of the article. If not, then templates and categories should not be making that claim. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:57, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

As stated above: The following facts have been established without a doubt, and reported by the BBC, the NYT, the Guardian, CNN, etc.
 * Chérif Chekatt's father is a Fiche S Islamic fundamentalist, as are some of Chérif Chekatt's brothers.
 * Chérif Chekatt was considered as a gangster-djihadist and had shown radical religious practices in Islam.
 * He was a Fiche S, too.
 * During the attack, he shouted "Allahu akbar".
 * According to his father, Chékatt was fond of ISIL, while his father was not.
 * Once Chékatt died, ISIL called him one of their soldiers.
 * This claim was taken with scepticism by French authorities and called bogus by Interior Minister, Christopher Castaner.
 * A few days later, a USB stick containing Chekatt's pledge of allegiance to ISIL was found, vindicating ISIL's claim.

All this is mentioned in the article. Moreover, Christmas markets are a target of ISIL fighters, just see the 2016 Berlin truck attack, which is categorized under Islamic terrorist incidents in 2016, even though the perpetrator was killed before facing trial too. I really don't see your problem here. Jeff5102 (talk) 16:34, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * And the parent category should be masculinist terrorism, of which this is a schism, lets see if I can apply the same rationale with your copypasta:


 * Chérif Chekatt's father is a Fiche S Islamic fundamentalist, as are some of Chérif Chekatt's brothers.
 * Chérif Chekatt was considered as a gangster-djihadist and had shown radical religious practices in Islam.
 * He was a Fiche S, too.
 * During the attack, he shouted "Allahu akbar".
 * According to his father, Chékatt was fond of ISIL, while his father was not.
 * Once Chékatt died, ISIL called him one of their soldiers.
 * This claim was taken with scepticism by French authorities and called bogus by Interior Minister, Christopher Castaner.
 * A few days later, a USB stick containing Chekatt's pledge of allegiance to ISIL was found, vindicating ISIL's claim. [stick?, maybe I'm pushing my luck)
 * Goodness, I've convinced myself with this emboldening of every bit of mannishness, I've got some categories for a million articles! cygnis insignis 17:19, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I completely get that the exercise here is to establish what the sources say and not what we personally think the truth is. That said, surely the following sources establish that this was an Islamist terrorist attack (as opposed to a mere terrorist attack):

The following sources (BBC and CNN) both report that the attacker had pledged allegiance to IS in a video just before the attack: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-46660217 https://edition.cnn.com/2018/12/22/europe/france-strasbourg-attacker-intl/index.html

Furthermore, the following source (the Guardian) reports that French police are characterising the attacker as a 'gangster-jihadist'. The article further acknowledges the attacker's apparent fall into 'Islamic extremism':

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/dec/12/cherif-chekkat-who-is-the-strasbourg-shooting-suspect

Are these sufficient? If not, please educate me as to why. (Genuine question - happy to be educated if I'm wrong).Gwandon34 (talk) 21:10, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No. See WP:SYNTH. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:36, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , Find some books on the subject, get an understanding of published views, appreciate there are multiple viewpoints and this is not a place for determination of fact. Islamist is not a term I was familiar with until my exposure to US media, is there an accepted definition? cygnis insignis 21:39, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why you're telling me that WP "is not a place for determination of fact". I already know that.  I demonstrated I knew that when I said "I completely get that the exercise here is to establish what the sources say and not what we personally think the truth is".  I also do not understand the relevance of telling me to to read books and that "multiple viewpoints" exist, when you do not appear to be suggesting that any books/viewpoints exist that contradict the claim I had advocated.  Also, an Islamic or Islamist terrorist attack is a terrorist attack where the terrorist is motivated by what he/she considers to be Islamic principles.  What the purpose of that question was, I don't quite follow.


 * As to my sources, thank you Andy for the link, which I have read. If I understand correctly, my mistake appears to have been that I was reasoning that if an individual pledges allegiance to IS before an attack (IS itself being well-established as an Islamic terrorist group), it therefore followed by definition that said attack was an Islamic attack.  However, if I understand you correctly, no matter how mind-blowingly obvious that inference may be in reality, it is still a 'synthesis' and nothing short of a reliable source positively stating that the attacker was definitively motivated by Islam (or that this was otherwise an Islamic attack) will do.  Is that a fair analysis?Gwandon34 (talk) 01:33, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , there is some content on the use of "Islamist" at Islamism. The premise of what is 'obvious' rests on a definition that does not have a common frame of reference, and it is used as shorthand or 'trigger word' by commentators whose objectivity has been questioned. The emboldening of the term prompted [or triggered] me to question the premise. cygnis insignis 02:23, 6 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Sorry, maybe I am just stupid, but:
 * 1. since when is "masculinist terrorism" a thing? And why should masculinist terrorists target Christmas markets?
 * 2. What more evidence is needed to convince some editors here that this indeed is an islamist attack? A notorized statement, perhaps?
 * 3. Given the truckload of websites, documentaries and books stating that the September 11 attacks were an inside job by the Bush-admministration, combined with the lack of a non-disputed statement by the late hijackers themselves: why are these attacks still categorized as "Al-Qaeda attacks"?Jeff5102 (talk) 14:19, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , you are obviously not stupid, just missing how it was an attempt by me to show that Islamist is a subjective and loaded term. And ultimately so is terrorist, it can be narrow or loose, the unqualified use of these terms is suggestive rather than factual. 911 was a terrorist act, I doubt that is in dispute. Who was responsible for executing the act, or ignoring the evidence that it was coming, is the topic in several articles here (I imagine), that there was a conspiracy to commit the act is not in doubt. cygnis insignis 15:12, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. What would you think of this proposal? Let's see how Europol will judge this. After all, Europol was a valid source at the 2018 Paris knife attack and the 2018 Liège attack-articles. Thus, if Europol calls it "Islamist (or jihadist) terrorism", we can include the category.' Maybe another organisation will do too, but we need to discuss that first. It might take a while, but making an encyclopedia is not a work that needs to be done in a hurry. Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 19:34, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Would they use that term, Islamist, when some international organisations (AP news) have deprecated the use of the same term. cygnis insignis 22:16, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Europol would say "jihadist." But for now, Wikipedia uses the term "Islamist" instead in the categories for these assaults. But feel free to start a discussion about the term at the proper place (or the Teahouse, if there isn't one). I don't care that much if it is islamist or jihadist. Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 08:05, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , 'wikipedia' also deliberately avoids those terms, she is fickle in her opinions. cygnis insignis 07:31, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * And, naturally, if it turns out that you are right, we shall make a new "Masculinist terrorist incidents in 2018 for this item. Jeff5102 (talk) 19:37, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I could start by making a nav box, with a taxonomy of all the schisms religious, social, or political, and by year lists going back to … what, the Roman Empire? Again, not serious, a weak attempt at reducing a notion to absurdity. Regards to you too, cygnis insignis 22:16, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I see. For me, putting five persons to death for attending a Christmas market is absurd enough already. But that is me. Regards, Jeff5102 (talk) 08:24, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Petter Nesser of FFI writes at CTC - categorises attack as Islamic terrorism
Petter Nesser, is a researcher at the Norwegian Defence Research Establishment (FFI). He includes the Strasbourg attack in his article about Islamic Terrorism published by the US Combating Terrorism Center. If he includes the attack in this category, enWP editors are obliged to follow sources - not ignore them. And no, enWP editors are under no obligation to wait a really long time for Europol, when other sources are available. AadaamS (talk) 06:11, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * CTC, being an part of the US Army, is not a neutral and impartial source on subjects related to the US military's "war on terror". We don't rely on such "sources". Otherwise we will have to classify all past and present enemies of global powers as "tyrannies", "dictators", etc. — kashmīrī  TALK  07:06, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Petter Nesser (employee of FFI in Norway) is an expert on terrorism - it is pointless to argue he is not an expert. Has been Nesser's article been criticized by other experts? If any expert has criticized Nesser's article I'm happy to read that criticism if you provide a link. AadaamS (talk) 19:06, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * A WP:RS source should reliable (FFI is a government institutition in Norway, one of the least corrupt countries in the world) and WP:SECONDARY. The attack described in this article happened in France, not the US where the CTC is situated. Nesser is an employee of FFI in Norway. Thus an excellent secondary source. AadaamS (talk) 19:23, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Peter Nesser's opinion does not necessarily align with other sources. We don't take into consideration minority viewpoints unless they are important or corroborated by multiple sources. The guy's employer and corruption level in Norway are really unimportant. Read also WP:RSOPINION. — kashmīrī  TALK  21:59, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * By the way, I am not sure whether being employed by NATO armed forces makes the guy so incredibly impartial in this matter. I assume that whatever he publishes, has to align with his institution's policies and political stance. — kashmīrī  TALK  22:03, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * kashmiri per does not necessarily align with other sources - which sources are you referring to? Please link them to provide a concrete example relevant to this discussion. Editors are obliged to rank Nesser's authoritative writing over the opinion of anonymous Wikipedia editors. AadaamS (talk) 05:44, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Now established that it was a premeditated attack
According to the inquiry, Chekatt had been preparing the attack "for several weeks" (À la veille du drame, il était depuis plusieurs semaines en plein préparatifs, selon les derniers développements de l’enquête judiciaire.). And it seems that both his father and his older brother Sami were supportive ( Quant au père, Ange Chekatt, âgé de 71 ans, il a prévenu son fils, par SMS, qu'il était recherché par les gendarmes, au matin du 11 décembre, qualifiant les forces de l'ordre de "chiens". Il a d'autre part décrit son fils comme un « bon musulman », assure Le Monde. Reste enfin la question de l'influence qu'aurait pu avoir Sami Chekatt, frère aîné du terroriste, expatrié en Algérie [...], tout en s'inscrivant dans "la mouvance islamiste radicale". "L’exploitation d’un téléphone lui ayant appartenu a par ailleurs mis en exergue des contenus de propagande de l’EI", rappelle le journal.) Edelseider (talk) 21:14, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * https://www.lemonde.fr/police-justice/article/2019/01/14/l-attentat-de-strasbourg-etait-premedite_5409040_1653578.html
 * https://www.dna.fr/actualite/2019/01/14/l-attaque-de-cherif-chekatt-etait-premeditee-selon-le-monde

RfC - Categorizing the article - is Petter Nesser at the FFI a reliable source?

 * 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.

Petter Nesser, is a researcher at the Norwegian Defence Research Establishment (FFI). He includes the Strasbourg attack in his article about Islamic Terrorism published by the US Combating Terrorism Center. Because Nesser is an expert this article should be placed in the "Category:Islamic Terrorism". See also opposing arguments in the previous discussion. AadaamS (talk) 05:30, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * One side comment in view of the linked previous exchange. .  Although I wish otherwise, the is no requirement that wp:reliable sources be impartial.  If there were such a requirement,    a good portion of the wp:"Rs's" cited in political articles would be no longer be allowed.  This is NOT implying that the discussed source is not impartial, only that a claim of "not impartial" has no basis in current Wikipedia policies and guidelines.    North8000 (talk) 01:13, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Guidelines do not mandate impartiality - if there is one, please link it. enWP guidelines recommend sources are secondary and reliable and Nesser's article should fit the bill. What's your position on using Nesser as a source in that regard? AadaamS (talk) 07:45, 5 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Include cat. Nesser writing at CTC is a an expert RS and states this is Islamic terror, but an Islamic state supporter. Absent sources indicating disagreement (as opposed to silence on the matter) - then yes - we should included the cat. Icewhiz (talk) 11:54, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Include cat. Nesser has been cited by many newspapers as an expert on islamic terror. He is a reliable source.--Never Forget 2701 (talk) 16:00, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Include cat A wp:rs supports that, and IMO the arguments against it do not have a basis in Wikipedia policy. North8000 (talk) 17:05, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak include cat and comment I am a bit concerned about the logic that says "he is an expert on terrorism, therefore he knows about THIS incident", even though we do not know whether he has access to all, or any, of this local police investigation. This is akin to saying he is a medical expert, therefore he is competent in his diagnosis (even though he hasn't had access to the medical data, nor examined the patient!) We may reasonably expect a terrorism expert to know a great deal about general trends and other matters relating to broad patterns, but such an expert is wholly reliant on local investigatore for whatever knowledge he has of specific events. Given other factors, I would conclude that inclusion is justified, but a local source (police or Justice Minister) with access to all the facts would be vastly preferable. Pincrete (talk) 08:36, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * An anonymous enWP editor cannot possibly know which information Nesser has access to. AadaamS (talk) 19:47, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Then, fairly obviously, we must assume he had no access to any information obtained in local investigation! Expertise is specific, not all embracing nor telepathic!Pincrete (talk) 22:09, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Assumptions by an enWP editor are WP:OR original research. What editors must do, is to find reliable sources and represent them accurately. No need to shout either, please consider refreshing your reading of WP:CIVIL. AadaamS (talk) 18:01, 10 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Exclude cat pending Yes he's a reliable source - as far as that goes. He's not a reliable source in the general sense that the BBC is a reliable source, or in the specific sense that an investigating police chief is a reliable source. Its not enough for him to have mentioned an assumed motivation as background to an article with more general focus. Had his article been about an investigation made into this incident, he would be a reliable source - but there is no evidence he did more than repeat hearsay. The Commissioner of the London Met is a reliable source, but not on this incident.


 * It's not OR to assume the status quo in the absence of contradictory evidence, that's the kind of assumption Wikipedians should be making.


 * My sense is that the article is compatible with the cat but I cannot support its inclusion on such thin basis. There is no imperative that it be included at all costs, and the reasonable cost of inclusion has not been met. Once it has, stick it in. If that never happens then so be it - our imperative as Wikipedians is to not fudge Wikipedia. Captainllama (talk) 22:58, 10 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Include cat, while only a mention as an example, it seems clear that he classifies this as Islamist terror. StudiesWorld (talk) 10:13, 13 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Include cat, meets Wiki policy. Barca (talk) 16:51, 20 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Include cat, clear and obvious. Also we can add islamic terrorism in the infobox. Reaper7 (talk) 08:42, 21 May 2019 (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 is there still denial here about the fact that this was a terror attack?
It is getting ridiculous, even worrisome, that some contributors still feel the urge to deny as quick as possible that these murders had anything to do with Islamic terrorism:. There should be no question about this now, it is well documented. --Edelseider (talk) 13:41, 6 October 2019 (UTC) NB: If doesn't respond or react, I will undo his edit. --Edelseider (talk) 14:51, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Because there is a comment note saying that calling it such is controversial, and so adding it back needs to be discussed on the talk page. I have no opinion, but since there was no discussion, removed it. Ping active page editors, start an RfC, or use some other method of finding consensus to include it in the infobox. Kingsif (talk) 16:22, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I suggest that you take the journalists of the respected Le Figaro to task for listing the Strasbourg attack among the attentats islamistes committed in France since 2012. Meanwhile, I will remove that obsolete because it is not controversial anymore to call it what it is. --Edelseider (talk) 17:54, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * This isn't about whether it is or not, it's about internal WP edit wars and no consensus backing. The BBC could state something obvious but if editors find it contentious enough to fight about, that needs to be solved. And I don't need to take anyone to task, because as I said I have no view on the matter at all. Since you're so stubborn about wanting to include it, let's leave it up and see if anyone fights over it. If not, I guess it's no longer contentious among editors (It was likely non-controversial in the press a long time ago).
 * tl;dr As a rule, if the page wants a consensus, your favorite RS isn't going to overturn that. (/because this is the internet, I feel obliged to point out that sarcasm is in play) Kingsif (talk) 18:28, 7 October 2019 (UTC)