Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks/Archive 4

Protected edit request on 30 June 2016 b
Two recent attacks appear to be missing:

12 June 2016 Orlando Nightclub Shooting.

28 June 2016 Istanbul Airport Attack.

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

Snowman1776 (talk) 16:50, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * ❌ - Please read the rest of this page.- MrX 16:54, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Too involved. Don't close requests.  --DHeyward (talk) 17:22, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The more I see of this page, the more it seems that the "List of... " format is a disaster waiting to happen. The motive for some of the attacks is not as easy to pin down as the mainstream media or armchair experts on Islamic radicalism seem to think. As I've also said, there is a risk of a false dilemma when an attack may have had a range of different motives.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 17:27, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The page is fully protected due to a content dispute largely brought on by a breitbart article. The request is asking to continue that dispute. There's no reason an involved person cannot answer. Heck, no sources were provided either.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 17:38, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps but another problem is the difference between "the" motive and "a" motive. No one seems to doubt that this was violence against LGBT people but there is much less evidence of that connection.  Nevertheless, both islamic terrorism and anti-LGBT can be a motive and we are not limited to a single list.  Islamic terrorists execute gay people routinely so the lists can intersect.  Why ignore all the sources that say it was Islamist terrorism?  The Boston bombing was at least as complicated.  --DHeyward (talk) 17:47, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The regular Wikipedia editors are agreed that mass shootings, bombings etc may have various motives. This page has degenerated into a mess because it sees things in black and white rather than shades of grey. As for the 2016 Istanbul Atatürk Airport attack, the Turkish government has blamed ISIL but there is as ever scope for debate.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 17:58, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Anyone can close requests. Your demand is declined.- MrX 17:51, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Ongoing RFC above. Please join there.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 17:35, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The RfC only concerns Orlando. Can we get some views on Turkey? -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:40, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Currently discussed at  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 17:45, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty much through with the RfC about Orlando because it has been meatpuppeted by Breitbart. The main concern now is whether this page has a viable format due to the difficulty in extracting a Boolean yes/no answer for the motive.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 17:42, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I think the RFC is still valid. It doesn't matter how people noticed this issue. The RFC header itself advises that if you came here as a result of a message off wiki, please adhere to our guidelines. It goes on to say "However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome." If the users you claim were brought here as a result of reading a Breitbart article, then their opinions are as valid as yours, provided they adhere to our guidelines. If you believe the result should not be valid, please seek consensus to change the RFC process. That it is not going the way you wish is not a reason to try to derail the result. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:12, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Whether they actually adhere to wiki guidelines is another thing. I suppose that many people come to wikipedia with ulterior motives—remember the ARBCOM messes on Falun Gong and Gamergate? Dschslava  Δx  parlez moi  19:58, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * What does it matter if there were 1 or 1,000 extra votes when the process of deciding is determined by the quality of arguments? Using the number of participants as a way of invalidating the RfC is more opposed to Wikipedia policy as it encourages the complete dismissal of all arguments in favor of the status quo, which is decidedly towards the no vote without any discussion. --Toomanyaccountsargh (talk) 20:54, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

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

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

In light of this information, it seems that indeed Orlando was motivated by extremism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.233.156.49 (talk) 14:06, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No, that would be a false binary. Let's let the FBI finish doing their job.- MrX 21:56, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Did you miss the first sentence of the quote about Mateen? "He claimed the shooting was carried out in allegiance to the militant group Islamic State, as a message to halt U.S. bombing in Iraq and Syria." This wasn't a "process of elimination" conclusion that it was extremism, this is actually what Mateen's affirmative motivation was as reported by the investigators. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.233.156.49 (talk) 14:44, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe I misunderstood how you were reaching your conclusion, in which case mentioning the gay angle is not really relevant. Whether Mateen's own pledge of allegiance to ISIL is sufficient for characterizing the shooting as an Islamist terrorist attack is at the center of the editorial dispute (above). Obviously opinions vary. - MrX 18:11, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Mateen's only claim is Islamist extremism. ISIL or Hezbollah or Chechen or Taliban matters not in a self-radicalized Islamist terror attack against Western policy. It is sufficient that he attacked unarmed persons because he disagreed with the policy that killed Muslims.  That is not an uncommon motive and the flavor of Islam is not relevant. We have a lot more evidence of his Islamist terror motive than any anti-LGBT motive.  --DHeyward (talk) 00:09, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

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

A muslim man shot up a nightclub under the pretense of Radical Islam. ISIL later took credit for it. Who cares if it was carried out on ISIL's instruction or not? ISIL has sent messages to Extremists in the US and other western countries to continue carrying out LONE WOLF attacks. ISIL can't personally endorse each and every attempted bombing. They only take credit once the deed is done. The Orlando shooting was one of these encouraged lone wolf attacks, and while ISIL didn't plan it, they certainly took credit. Stop this PC nonsense. You are disrespecting the deceased victims names if you call this anything other than what it really is: Islamic Terror. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Battlefront228 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yep. Here are some sources.

http://www.foreigndesknews.com/breaking-news/pro-isis-group-calls-lone-wolf-attacks-west/ http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/isis-official-calls-for-lone-wolf-attacks-in-us-and-europe-during-ramadan-a7042296.html http://www.wsj.com/articles/islamic-state-urges-lone-wolf-attacks-in-the-west-1465773874

I could bring up more, but I don't want to spam. R00b07 (talk) 00:31, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

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


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

Protected edit request on 2 July 2016
Adding the June 12, 2016 Islamic Terror attack perpetrated by Radical Muslim Omar Mateen in Orlando, Florida. No matter what this administration is trying to call it, he did it in the name of "allah", and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi of the Islamic State.

Dodgedude99 (talk) 15:11, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Please see the various discussions above and participate there.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 15:38, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 2 July 2016
Put Orlando back you bleeding heart PC scum

38.125.101.4 (talk) 07:05, 2 July 2016 (UTC)


 * ❌ - RfC in progress. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  07:10, 2 July 2016 (UTC)


 * There is already a discussion on this. As a member of the "bleeding heart PC scum" who is unsure about whether Orlando really was an Islamic terror attack or merely the work of another deranged U.S. loner who was able to buy an assault rifle so that he could take out his frustrations on innocent people, I would ask you to assume good faith before contributing.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 07:13, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, you totally don't sound like the sort of person who is deliberately "unsure" about this because it fits his political prejudices. 2601:602:9802:99B2:4C8C:7DAB:340E:C53F (talk) 07:40, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, you totally don't sound like the sort of person who is deliberately sure about this because it fits his political prejudices. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:41, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * RfC in progress. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  07:44, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It's been going on for ten days and has dozens and dozens of votes. What exactly are we waiting for to close it and stop the bleeding already? 2601:602:9802:99B2:4C8C:7DAB:340E:C53F (talk) 07:48, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The yelling to stop long enough for somebody to slog through it all. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:50, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Discussed at . The standard length for an RfC is 30 days, and the world will not end if we wait that long to include Orlando in this list. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  07:51, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Dear anti bleeding heart PC scum contributor; Edit requests are based on suggested changes, have a go at reading the instructions before you post will you. Although you pass the state unambiguously part with flying colours, so... congratz? Mr rnddude (talk) 07:28, 2 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Anyone vandalizing the article (after the Breitbart piece) while an RfC is in progress is making it a million times harder on themselves. Now the "No" Voter has the world's easiest argument to make -> "See, look at the vandalism, the article should stay the way it is, at least until the vandalism stops". (Even if someone states "it's just 'til the Vandalism stops", it will most likely remain that way, until somehow it becomes a hot topic again (I Doubt It Will)). Let the fact-based consensus determine what is most correct for what direction the article should take. R00b07 (talk) 15:47, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 June 2016
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"


 * ❌ - You may wish to participate in the above RfC. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:24, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Islamist vs jihadist
Forked from preceding thread. &#8213; Mandruss &#9742;  03:59, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

BTW, I object to the use of the word "Islamist". Jihadism has only a tangential connection to Islam and is certainly not representative of it, so Islamist is both misleading and incorrect. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  03:29, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * And Crusading has only a tangential connection with Catholicism, well no it doesn't, it has a distinct connection with it but is not representative of it (well, not anymore at least). In essence I'm trying to say that Jihadism is directly linked to Islam, but agree that it is by no means representative of it. Perhaps a simpler explanation would be; No Islam, No Jihad. Just a little bit more, that is not to say no Jihadi behaviour, only that it would take upon another name. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:36, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Could you fork this to a separate section? &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 03:40, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Done, sorry. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  03:45, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, had to leave for elections. Thanks for the move Mandruss. If I were to distinguish between a Jihadist and Islamist (off the top of my head so perhaps not particularly useful but perhaps you could dispel with this notion if you find it erroneous), it would be this, a Jihadist would be militant crusading (such as for ISIS) in the name of Islam, and Islamist (I assume extremist) would be a person committing some action, separate from a cause, in the name of Islam. Jihadism, as I understand it, is much like Crusading. What do you think of such a distinction? is there something you'd add, remove, modify, I'd like to know your opinion on this. I'll give it some thought myself since this is just off the top of my head. Thought I'd also add this, Islamist is a term I am not particularly familiar with and have often seen it used interchangeably with Jihadist (quite poorly I think). Mr rnddude (talk) 05:22, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * At the moment there is a hotchpotch of groups using Islam as a justification for their political goals. This creates a problem when assigning a motive to a bombing or mass shooting, because it is all too easy to fall into traps like "all Muslims are terrorists/Islam is a violent religion" etc. Most Muslims are just as sick of this sort of behavior as everyone else. Again, I would say that the title and format of this article are flawed because they fail to allow for any nuances in why people are doing the things that they do.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 05:31, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * What of COMMONNAME? Islamist/Islamic seems to be what these acts are referred to as, not Jihadist.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 05:34, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a long standing problem. Islamist is one of the most common words used to describe a hybrid of political and religious causes. Radical forms of Islam have no separation of church and state, which is why Islam often gets the blame for the actions of radical Islam.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 05:42, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It is a bit of a pain trying to meaningfully distinguish Islamist and Jihadist, and yes, Islamist is far more commonly used now. I think Ianmacm made a valid point, Islamist suggests Islam (in a general sense) which suggests Muslims (in a general sense). Jihadist suggests Jihad which suggests militant Islamic uprising, which suggests some Muslims (radical Islam). That however is OR and thus not encyclopaedic. So, what do? Mr rnddude (talk) 05:47, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * So, what do? - Stay with Islamist, I suppose, per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:GREATWRONGS, until the news media wake up and smell the 21st century. I'm prepared to withdraw my objection. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  07:16, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Sometimes, we just have to take it on the chin, even if it seems stupid to us. I agree, Jihadist and Islamist are different things, but the media is happy to cling to whatever generates views, so to must we, the not ignorant ignorant. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:20, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * And, as just explained in a different thread, Islamism is "quite distinct from Islam as a religion". Who knew?? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  09:17, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm worried that this article risks becoming a WP:COATRACK for people who think that all Muslims are terrorists, like this user on my talk page.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 09:28, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Seems like a well formulated and articulated opinion. (Sarcasm, for anybody who is unsure of it). Mr rnddude (talk) 09:32, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Such people do exist, but a bigger problem is users racing off to this article to add an example to the list on the basis of less than clear cut sourcing. The 2016 Istanbul airport attack is an example of this.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 09:36, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Gotta love it when they can't spell the word they're spouting off about. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  10:51, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Contrast with the likes of Ba'athism, which is a secular political ideology which at least nominally promotes socialism and social progress. (Despite the Ba'athist regimes actually being authoritarian and having some strong similarities with fascism). Or Nasserism which is mostly secular in ideology and promotes modernisation and industrialisation as goals. Dimadick (talk) 09:38, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * As I've already said, the biggest problem is the complete lack of separation of church and state in radical Islam. This means that the actions of a government or political movement are seen as directly linked to Islam. Then all Muslims get the blame for the actions of the headbangers.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 09:42, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The comparison to the Crusades was meant specifically for Jihadism, however, Islamism and Jihadism are somehow converging to be single thing as far as the media are concerned, so I take your point. Yes, most of us realize that Islamism is not Islam, some however seem to have missed the memo and so we get messages such as "all Muslims are terrorists", per IanMacm. I am however glad to have a clearer picture of Islamism, thank you. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:45, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * "some however seem to have missed the memo and so we get messages such as "all Muslims are terrorists", per IanMacm" - Mr rnddude


 * Could I get a source on who said that "all Muslims are Terrorists"? I can't seem to find it on this talk page. R00b07 (talk) 16:00, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, somebody said it on my talk page, although they could do with spelling lessons. At the moment, this page is being visited by a range of people who have heard via Breitbart that Wikipedia is run by liberals who are reluctant to say that the Orlando shooting was an Islamic terror attack. The reality is that the debate is about whether this is the best or only description of what happened, bearing in mind similar cases such as the Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood shooting.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 18:16, 2 July 2016 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


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


 * Your most damning piece of evidence doesn't exist anymore. Check the link. Your second piece of evidence doesn't attribute Orlando to ISIS. Your third doesn't even mention Orlando. Your fourth also no longer exists. Your fifth makes no mention of ISIL or ISIS or Daesh. Your sixth also doesn't exist anymore. You've synthesized ideas from each individual article to draw a conclusion, per WP:SYNTH this is OR. See the problem. So let me flatly deny your allegation, it is not undeniable that this was an Islamist attack. You need to distinguish between Islamist and Islamic, an Islamist attack refers to an attack from an Islamist organization or one of its proponents, Omar claimed to be a proponent of ISIS but there's a problem. The problem is he's an angry violent criminal, he's not a reliable source to base claims off, the comparison to aliens is being made for a reason. A less then stable state of mind is not one to be sourced from, so we wait. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:43, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry have to re=ping you due typo, . Mr rnddude (talk) 19:44, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It's okay (the pinging thing), I can't make a larger comment since I have to go somewhere soon. Here is are archived versions of the 1st source (the 911 call) and the 4th source (the motive) (https://web.archive.org/web/20160621131734/https://www.fbi.gov/tampa/press-releases/2016/investigative-update-regarding-pulse-nightclub-shooting) & (https://web.archive.org/web/20160701002424/http://www.democracynow.org/2016/6/15/headlines/orlando_survivor_says_shooter_wanted_us_to_stop_bombing_afghanistan), Don't know why they were removed, it's not like the 911 call or the motive changed all of the sudden. My point with the 2nd and 3rd source was that the CIA reported that ISIS is telling Jihadis to commit lone wolf attacks, and then Orlando happens and I have seen editors state that because it was a lone wolf attack, it can't be Islamic Terror. The last two sources debunk the notion that he was gay, as you can see several users that have made that claim. I have even someone here refuse to change his position, despite it being clear misinformation. R00b07 (talk) 20:54, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Orlando double standard?
Ok I really don't understand why this is so difficult. I am going to make this simple. The Boston Marathon Bombings were caused by 2 brothers with no found affiliation to a terrorist group but have a declared motive, same with San Bernardino except they had no clear declared motive (maybe offended by the Christmas baby shower). Then we come to the Orlando attack, the perpetrator during the three crisis negotiations and on Facebook posts declared his motive but was likely not affiliated with a group. Terrorism by definition is "the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims." They were of radical islamic political aims. Thus all three are islamic terrorist attacks. As a result of this logical reasoning the Orlando attack should also be included on this list.ShadowDragon343 (talk) 00:55, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * There's currently an RfC with it's own lively discussion section. I don't understand the need to open multiple new discussions as if that would somehow short circuit the ongoing dispute resolution process. As has been pointed out before, the inclusion criteria for this list article are vague, so one would expect different interpretations about what should be included.- MrX 01:06, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * While discussions like this may have been necessary in the following days as more was revealed, I strongly feel that time has passed and all the RfC's have turned into is a book publishable amount of back and forth between countless users on one side who support and in particular you, Mandruss, and IanMacM on the other who don't. This all with little advancement on the subject whatsoever. There was less support to include San Bernardino than there is for Orlando while the latter suddenly out of all them on the list meets this sudden big resistance to include it to where the page is protected. Out of what 110 something subjects on this article Orlando makes up over a fifth of them!!! ShadowDragon343 (talk) 04:24, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The RfC has been opened, until it is closed there's no point in opening several other sections to discuss the same thing. For whatever reason, there is opposition to include and support to include. If the support inclusion side has presented better arguments, then the RfC will acknowledge this when closing and adding Orlando to the article. There's nothing to be done before then. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:44, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * We let RfCs run their course (usually 30 days), unless there is good reason to close early (I assume that "good reason" is established by consensus like anything else, and that consensus does not exist, as seen in prior discussion). People need to cease accusations of obstructionism by others who understand Wikipedia process and believe in respecting it. If you can't observe WP:AGF, you are more problem than solution. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  05:02, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if we're ever going to create a situation where everyone is happy over this. The "list of..." format of this article is flawed, because it fails to allow for any nuances in what may have caused the incident.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 05:23, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Unless you propose to nominate this for deletion (and good luck with that), I feel the best available option is to divide into at least three sub-lists (within this article, not a split), such as discussed at . As I've said there, I wouldn't oppose including Orlando in the third sub-list described there. With more support for that concept, we just might be able to reach a resolution at-least-acceptable to most, something we didn't expect. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  05:30, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * As the RFC above shows, it is already "acceptable to most" that we add this Islamist terror attack to the list and get on with our lives. If you want to work on a new version of the page, go for it, but there's no reason to leave this list in its current inaccurate state in the meantime. 2601:602:9802:99B2:243D:BE0E:E170:563F (talk) 06:36, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Over the past few days I've also been reminded of this incident in Moscow in February 2016. The fact that the woman was shouting "Allahu Akbar" and threatening to blow herself up is a lot like Omar Mateen, but a court ordered an investigation into her sanity.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 06:25, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

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

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


 * Two major divisions would be (1) Islamist- sponsored terrorism, e.g. 9/11, and (2) Islamist- inspired lone-wolf terrorism. But even that would be too coarse, since there is a distinct and important difference between somewhat-rational lone wolves who fully understand and subscribe to jihadist ideology and those who are simply angry lunatics who need a place to hang their anger and arbitrarily choose jihadism. Another example of the latter is Robert Lewis Dear, who chose pro-life. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  03:45, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * If you're willing, please avoid using mental illness descriptors. These folks were not mentally ill by medical definitions (and those of us who are in some fashion are not dangerous killers like these people). That said, I think the idea of reorganizing the list is a good one. Mandruss' idea makes sense. We could have a column or something with notes about self-proclamations (lacking other investigative evidence).  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 05:37, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll avoid overgeneralizing but, for example: "Following subsequent evaluations that determined Dear to be delusional, the judge in the case ruled in June 2016 that Dear was incompetent to stand trial and order him indefinitely confined to a Colorado state mental hospital." I think it's fair to say that mental illness is a major factor in most mass killings, and that doesn't exclude all of those which also have a terrorism connection. Perhaps "lunatic" was not the most sensitive choice of word. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  06:07, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose RfC on reorganization of list per following closure of in-progress RfC.  Dschslava  Δx  parlez moi  06:33, 2 July 2016 (UTC)


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


 * I would place Mateen in that third category based on current evidence, and I wouldn't oppose including Orlando in that section of a restructured list here. The sticky parts are (1) what to call that section, and (2) at what point do we run afoul of NOR/SYNTH? Need smarter editors than me for those questions. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  12:46, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I can make an attempt at suggestion a couple names for that section. 1. Islamist-attributed attack, or, 2.Islamist-alleged attack. It'd be a bit difficult to make a section for each possibility but alleged might work to cast that shadow of doubt we (some of us) hold. It's also fairly easy to explain why that shadow of doubt exists in the actual entry. For example, Omar claims allegiance to ISIS prior to the attack, however, -insert other causes here (homosexuality, faith, mental health, etc)-, That sort of thing might suffice. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:52, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

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

'Splain, Lucy.
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 &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; &#124; talk &#x7C; 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 &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; &#124; talk &#x7C; 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 &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; &#124; talk &#x7C; 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).  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 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)


 * I have brought up several times over the course of my lifetime, a very simple question. What religion on this planet has caused more deaths by extremists than any other (per capita and overall) within the last 30 years? Note, that last 30 years part. I don't care what happened in 1540 BC because that's not the word we live in today. Nobody has been able answer seriously with an answer other than Islam. As a result, Islamic Terrorism has been replaced with Islamist Extremism. It's a way to soften words to save face. Nothing else.R00b07 (talk) 22:44, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It's when we confuse political correctness with factual inaccuracy that the problem starts. Case in point: here. Do the majority (or the vast majority, for that matter) of Muslims sanction such attacks? No. Why do these attacks happen? Because some nutcases decide (or not) to get together and go kill people. What's their reasoning? Well, they're taking what the Koran says to an extreme that no self-respecting person would condone. Thus, by definition, Islamic Extremism is more accurate. Dschslava  Δx  parlez moi  05:46, 2 July 2016 (UTC)


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


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


 * So, 87% of 171,000,000 is 149,379,000.
 * And 26% of 149,379,000 is 38,838,540.


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


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


 * Disclaimer; All I did was crunch the numbers. So if you have anyone has problems about supposed Islamophobia, take it out with Pew Research, but most importantly, take it out with the people who said "yes" in the survey. It's their horrid beliefs, not mine. R00b07 (talk) 16:28, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Caveat lector., so now we're setting the beliefs of a quarter of Muslims in a Third World country where education is, for all intents, nil, and where poverty runs rampant (and Death too—memento mori) as justification for inaccuracy in terminology? In this world, we do not, as self-repecting citizens thereof, willfully misattribute monikers like 'terrorist' to ethnic and religious groups where relatively sane members see the irrationality of the behaviour of fellow members of the group. It seems to me that people are mistaking 'political correctness' for 'factual ambiguity' (or, as is so prominently the case for others, 'factual inaccuracy') and using that as veiled justification for vile racist acts full of perfectly unreasonable hatred. I do hope that you are not one of these people (unlike some others on this thread) but instead, like me, work to correct it when it has gone too far (for instance, using racist words when referring to them as racist should by no means be condemned). Statistics often lie, by the way. Statistics tell the truth too, any truth that anyone cares to derive. I'm not questioning the veracity of your source, by the way—I'm questioning your desire to hide behind it and let it make your very general case for you.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


 * I agree that nobody should hate anybody for anything, but criticism of a set of ideas =/= hatred of a group of people. R00b07 (talk) 22:58, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * , I don't want to make any claim, but your edit appears to have modified 's comment a little bit, not sure if intentional or accidental. That said, I agree heavily with R00b07 on a couple points, 1. Criticizing a religion for the ideas the present should be a right, just like those presented by any other person or entity. 2. A religion does not equate to a race, I only bring this up because I have on occasion heard the downright ridiculous claim that criticizing a belief is racism. And 3. Some of the beliefs that many (not all) Muslims hold in the third world do not, could not, and should not ever be translated to the first world. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:12, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * and, I will allow that I erred in the use of 'racism' in this respect. In my defense, however, I can find no single word that describes prejudice against a certain religion quite as well. I'm off to run an errand, however, but will complete my reply later. Dschslava  Δx  parlez moi  23:53, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That's fine, I will see your reply when you return. That said, there is a difference between criticism and prejudice. The third world and the first world are very different in many respects, this applies to Islam as well, though I fear not in all respects. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:00, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * So here's my response. You certainly don't need to be in poverty to be radicalized. But it certainly increases the chances. Criticism of a set of ideas is certainly not hatred of a group of people, but neither belongs anywhere near Wikipedia. Conservapedia is thataway, and RationalWiki is right over here. Dschslava  Δx  parlez moi  22:53, 3 July 2016 (UTC)


 * "You certainly don't need to be in poverty to be radicalized. But it certainly increases the chances" - Dschslava


 * I agree, and I listed my reasoning above.


 * "Criticism of a set of ideas is certainly not hatred of a group of people, but neither belongs anywhere near Wikipedia." - Dschslava


 * I also agree, and that's why I didn't criticize the ideas on this particular subsection. It would not have been appropriate. What I stated that is that you aren't a racist just because someone is critical of Islam. I brought up the lack of free speech, women's rights, and apostasy rights only as a response to your comment on the mis-attribution of monikers on a whole group of people. Like I said, I am waiting for the moderates in 3rd world countries to rise up for free, democratic, secular values. I brought up the statistics of 30 million non-violent Islamists only in response to the "Islamist minority" theory. Once again 30 million in one country is a minority, but it's damn scary and damn significant. Not trying to be hostile, just trying to explain myself. R00b07 (talk) 00:45, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * , and seeing as I noted why I used the word 'racist' above, it seems that we are in agreement; let us now turn our energies elsewhere. Dschslava  Δx  parlez moi  01:07, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

If I edited any comment by Dschlava, I would like to apologize. It was a mistake on mistake on my part. It honestly don't know how it happened, but it most likely happened when I was copy pasting his words to make a rebuttal. Sorry for any damage. R00b07 (talk) 02:49, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Not a problem, any accidental change could easily be rectified, I only noted a couple bytes of change total which didn't affect the meaning of the comment at all. I would assume it happened during copy paste as well, the nature of the change would be consistent with an accidental click and drag of letters. That's all Mr rnddude (talk) 03:38, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Constructive discussion, or not
My suggestion is that established editors simply ignore confrontational comments from users who have almost no experience with Wikipedia editing, whose greatest qualification for participation is a computer with Internet access, and who are only here to cause trouble in the misguided, very POV belief that they are doing something good for this encyclopedia. This is not what constructive discussion looks like, and we shouldn't encourage it by responding to it. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  07:04, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Malik Shabazz and User:MShabazz are coming perilously close to sock puppetry, despite notices on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MShabazz Mrdthree (talk) 10:10, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see, Malik Shabazz and MShabazz have never denied being the same person. Also, just to clarify, anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion on this page, but personal attacks and walls of text not related to article improvement will be removed in line with the talk page guidelines.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 10:27, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * With respect for your opinion, I feel that one should know something about Wikipedia editing principles and policies before coming here and expecting to interact as an equal with those who do. This is not stuff you pick up with casual exposure, or quickly. It takes years of study and experience. I've been at it heavily for three years and there are still many areas of this work where I wouldn't presume to tread. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  10:37, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * There have been about 600 posts on this topic. About 200 of these posts are made by 5 Novoters: User:Malik Shabazz (19), User:MrX (23), User: Ianmacm (24),  User:Mr rnddude (65) and User: Mandruss (76). Perhaps these 5 people can get together and post a cogent well referenced (sourced) No case.Mrdthree (talk) 10:47, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 1/3 of the topic posts have been made by 5 (No) Voters? I really hope that well reasoned arguments from both sides will heard out when WP:CON is reached. Kinda scary. R00b07 (talk) 20:29, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * it is true use the edit count tools in the talk history menu. While User:Malik Shabazz has been a gentleman to me his alternative account User:MShabazz has already done what no one in 9 years has done-- gone to my personal talk page and insulted me.Mrdthree (talk) 01:54, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, then, you're a bigger moron than I thought earlier. The edit count tool tells you how many times I've edited the page, not how many "posts on this topic" I've made. Sheesh. They'll let anybody edit, won't they? To repeat myself, I doubt if I've posted about Orlando more than six or so times. I have, however, made about 60 edits to this page since December 2014 . You, on the other hand, have made 44 this week . Do you suffer from logorrhea? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:09, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Either Mrdthree doesn't know how to count or he's intentionally lying. I doubt if I've made more than six or so comments about the Orlando shooting but my name is all over this talk page. I'll leave it to you to figure out why. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 20:46, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Let me remind you that this is not a forum for personal attacks. Whether it is calling me a liar or moron , or calling other people morons  Mrdthree (talk) 05:41, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I think he was counting the number of times our name is mentioned/tagged or signed, I myself have made no vote for example, and my name is mentioned around 60 times but only 45 of those are comments by me and less then a third of them actually discuss Orlando. Mostly I've been discussing WP:RS and secondary v primary, WP:CIVIL and other non-Orlando related discussions. Still I've been made out to be a no voter. Funny isn't it. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:53, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No I am using edit count tools. https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-articleinfo/?article=Talk:List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks&project=en.wikipedia.org Like that one and others. Try it. It counts revisions as well and that's ok because the 600 number does as well.Mrdthree (talk) 01:54, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Right, then show me where I voted, you won't be able to because I haven't. While wiki count tools might tell you how many edits I've made to this, they won't be able to tell you the number of my individual separate comments, and unless you're also counting edits I made to fix grammar, spelling, or other copy-edits, I've made less comments then you count. Do a ctrl-f search, only just now is it at 66 mentions of my name (not all of these are my personal comments). In which case, you ought to manually count them, they give you a more accurate tally then a wiki-count would. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:07, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * My apologies for taking him at face value. I was just assuming good faith and didn't think I would actually have to double check on something that could be so easily debunked. R00b07 (talk) 21:08, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't worry you are not the one who should apologize. The facts are obtained using wiki tools. Mrdthree (talk) 01:58, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Read my comment above, facts can be manipulated, wiki-counting gives you number of edits, not, individual comments. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:07, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Fine you arent a participant I will stop mentioning you.Mrdthree (talk) 04:55, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The nay positions are not identical any more than the yea positions are identical. Neither group is like a political party with the need to present a single platform. Our individual positions are stated in our !votes. Cogent or not is obviously a matter of one's perspective. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  10:54, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * There is a learning curve on Wikipedia and everyone gets it wrong when they are a newbie. What has gone wrong here is that an external website - Breitbart - has encouraged its readers to believe that Wikipedia is deliberately hiding that fact that Omar Mateen claimed an Islamist motive for the Orlando shooting, which it isn't. Anyone who has been round the block on Wikipedia knows that articles involving religion, particularly Islam, can set off heated debates very quickly, which is why many of them have a one revert rule instead of the usual WP:3RR. At the moment, this article is fully protected so that only administrators can edit it. This is due to expire later today, but if it leads to a carousel of edit warring about the Orlando shooting, it may return.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 10:57, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * There is a learning curve on Wikipedia and everyone gets it wrong when they are a newbie. - True, and some of them understand that they are newbies and refrain from aggressive, know-it-all stances against experienced editors. I'm speaking only of those who don't. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  11:02, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Aggressive nonsense will be removed in accordance with the talk page guidelines. I still don't think that the root cause of the problem with this article has been tackled, which is the Boolean logic used in the "list of..." format. This permits only two truth values; 1 (it was an Islamist attack) and 0 (it wasn't an Islamist attack). This type of logic is wholly unsuitable for political and religious situations where a range of motives may have been involved.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 11:14, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The sub-lists remove the binary. With them, it becomes, (1) It was an Islamist-sponsored terrorist attack, (2) It was a clear-cut Islamist-inspired terrorist attack, (3) It was an attack with loose and/or ambiguous connection to Islamist terrorism, apparently involving other factors and motivations, or (4) It was not an Islamist terrorist attack. Granularity doubled. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  11:20, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I think the article needs to move in this direction.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 11:27, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I stated the other day that I think it likely we'll hold a referendum and change how this list works and the inclusions to it before the RFC is closed; and thereby make it moot - honestly, the decision about Orlando isn't even important in my thoughts in comparison because doing this (adding clearer categories) would be a massive improvement to the list in the first place and should be done regardless. I'd remove the "clear-cut" from Islamist-inspired only because the category (sponsored/inspired/ambiguous/not Islamist) should be defined solely by the sources, and "clear-cut" is very context/perspective heavy - best to not add additional define rules on our end. Not that I think you were trying to (or that we would once the change was made) I'm assuming it was more a context reference to the current Orlando debacle, but just stating to make that distinction. If there's someone willing to do the heavy lifting, perhaps sandbox the changes and we can replace/vote to replace with the new changes after the RFC? (only to give time for the current mess to end) SpeakerOfReason (be gentle!) 12:07, 3 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The sublists are a great example of SYNTH and OR. Luckily we have reliable sources to remove our guess work. It's overwhelming. Are their any sources that refute it was an islamist terrorist attack or is this a strawman holdout for an action that will never come? What secondary sourcing is absent or conflicting that we can't reflect a list generated by the NY Times and backed up by a number of other sources? --DHeyward (talk) 12:12, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The sublist argument isn't about the Orlando shooting other then the fact it's being decided for inclusion on this page - and it wouldn't be SYNTH or OR as long as the category it falls under is defined by the sources; which our articles and their inclusion on this list should be in the first place. A majority of sources claim it was ISIL that planned it, it's Islamist sponsored, if it's lone wolf (such as Mateen) it's Islamist inspired, etc etc. This, as normal, would be sourced and their category defined by those sources, not us. Plenty of the articles/news stories on this list already make these distinctions about the attacks, this list has thus far just ignored the categorical types. SpeakerOfReason (be gentle!) 12:20, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I was unsure about the OR/SYNTH and asked for comments about that yesterday at . None received there yet. Without the sub-lists we're back to square one and waiting for the RfC to run its course. The arguments against inclusion in the list as it stands now are stated in the !votes and I'm certainly not going to re-hash mine here, once again. If you're right, the closer should close in your favor. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  12:25, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I mean I don't think it's OR/SYNTH only because those distinctions are already made by the sources, and just not being used here - I suppose it might be better if the category terms were more "true to source" so to speak to make it clear what they mean and that the distinction isn't set by us, but it would definitely be a profound improvement to the article overall to have them. SpeakerOfReason (be gentle!) 12:31, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * If it's unclear, I was replying to DHeyward, as indicated by my indent level per WP:THREAD. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  12:34, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh no I know, just wanted to chime in again on the OR/SYNTH issues in support - and add more clarity to it in doing so. Perhaps instead of separate sub-lists a color code chart with the x-axis as the categories? As well as a second color (orange?) if the source for a particular article states possible but unknown in a category? For example, green under inspired for Orlando, with orange in ambiguous or other motivations since there are plenty enough sources (even if out of date for the facts of the case) that state that possibility. SpeakerOfReason (be gentle!) 12:45, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately parts of the mainstream media have fallen into the binary yes/no trap as well. Mateen ranted about having an Islamist motive but people who have done similar things have been subjected to tests to determine their competence, such as Robert Lewis Dear, Jr.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 12:58, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I support ' proposal to break this list into three categories. If we do this, I would withdraw my opposition in the RfC because the Orlando shooting would obviously fit into one of those categories. I also think all entries should be presented in a sortable table format.- MrX 13:03, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I mean that always has been (and will be true) for things like this - I think the categories can still be done, but if an article doesn't have any sources that go beyond the binary or state a clear motivation, I'd just leave the boxes blank (speaking of adding a color chart here, since I think it would work better then sublists and could be applied to the existing page as minimal columns before description) and let the article and its sources speak for itself, and only code the ones that are sourced positively in the categories. SpeakerOfReason (be gentle!) 13:07, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * When Daniel M'Naghten attempted to assassinate British Prime Minister Robert Peel in 1843, it led to a debate about how a person's state of mind contributed to their actions known as the M'Naghten rules which are still in use today. After the Killing of Jo Cox the court requested a report on the competence of the man accused of killing her. In this incident in Moscow in February 2016, Gyulchekhra Bobokulova was shouting "Allahu Akbar" (God is Great) I am a terrorist. I am your death" which led to her being detained in psychiatric care. One of the first things that a U.S. court would have wanted to know is whether Omar Mateen was mentally competent, but his death has prevented this.-- ♦Ian Ma c  M♦  (talk to me) 13:24, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * , I'd like to point out, while I am very active here on this page, I am not "no" voter, I haven't voted, nor do I intend to. The impression that I am a no voter doesn't surprise me since much of my discussion has been on the side of the no, but I am equally amenable to both side. I just need one of them to convince me. Thank you, Mr rnddude (talk) 18:36, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

"My suggestion is that established editors simply ignore confrontational comments"

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

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

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

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

Nope. Look at Consensus and Assume Good Faith, please, and then get back to me. R00b07 (talk) 20:13, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe Mandruss was referring to pointless banging of the head against the wall. What I mean by that is that repeated discussion over the same points with the same people and going in circles is a waste of time. Their comments were not directed towards any particular user, but, to the users who came here to yell at the people who have a differing opinion. A few users have requested that procedure be ignored. Consensus is not determined by yes and no votes, R00b07, its determined based on the merits of the argument. Both sides have given their argument, and, unless anybody introduces something new, there isn't much to discuss further.
 * Let me try to put each of his arguments into perspective.
 * 1. "Established editors simply ignore confrontational comments"; well refer to the protected edit requests where some IPs and editors have gone so far as to call people stupid for their opinion.
 * 2. "from users who have almost no experience with Wikipedia editing, whose greatest qualification for participation is a computer with Internet access, and who are only here to cause trouble in the misguided, very POV belief that they are doing something good for this encyclopedia."; Those same people, the ones who came here, and presented their argument in the form of insults. The comment was poorly phrased, it alienates new users who have an opinion and that is not the environment Wikipedia wants to establish, I imagine it was born mostly out of frustration rather then intent to alienate.
 * 3. "This is not what constructive discussion looks like, and we shouldn't encourage it by responding to it."; again, referring to the people that are here to argue and throw a fuss because they don't it.
 * I don't agree with the way Mandruss is going about saying it, so let me phrase it in my own words.
 * If you are here to present an argument for your case, and to accept that others have their own opinion and a right to that opinion, feel free to stay and contribute to the discussion. If not, there's plenty of pages that need attention, plenty of topics to improve, plenty of other discussions to be involved with. I personally left this discussion more or less yesterday to focus on a more interesting topic to myself, and am waiting for a good B-class review, may even take it to GA. Have a nice day Mr rnddude (talk) 20:31, 3 July 2016 (UTC)


 * "Consensus is not determined by yes and no votes, R00b07, its determined based on the merits of the argument. Both sides have given their argument, and, unless anybody introduces something new, there isn't much to discuss further." - Mr rnddude


 * I explicitly stated that. I even cited consensus.
 * "Oh, so now consensus is not formed by sources and arguments ... Oh wait, that's not true at all. WP:CON " - R00b07


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


 * This isn't the first, nor the last, article that IP trolls will edit. From my perspective, and I hope he can politely correct me on this, Mandruss seems to be throwing the baby (Legit Yes Voters with Sources and Arguments) out with the bath water (IP Trolls).


 * This next quote of yours refers to the Mandruss comment about "established editors" (Can't put any larger quotation marks around that). This sentence is just for some context on your next quote.


 * "The comment was poorly phrased, it alienates new users who have an opinion and that is not the environment Wikipedia wants to establish, I imagine it was born mostly out of frustration rather then intent to alienate." -


 * This isn't the first time I've seen the hostility towards newer users. Frustration is not an acceptable excuse for behavior that is not in sync with wiki etiquette.


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


 * Absolutely. That's a model example on how Wikipedians should treat their fellow editors. Thank You. R00b07 (talk) 20:51, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand where you're coming from, you happen to be one of the few people (of whom I am aware) who actually tried to make a solid case for your argument backed up with numerous sources (a couple didn't work initially but you addressed it). That's also why you're one of the few people I've discussed the argument (yes or no) with. I can't tell you what Mandruss thinks or believes, only what I think they were trying to say. Right now, the yes arguments have it, I think DHeyward made an excellent couple points on the topic, so I imagine that the discussion will close in the favour of yes and have it included in the article. Personally, believe it or not, I agree with the yes's, but, I think one pressing issue is that the article needs to be overhauled to generate a better structure. Right now it's far too black and white (either its Islamist or its not), addressing the nuances should make this article better at acknowledging other factors (Islamist caused, Islamist inspired and arguably Islamist attributed (for cases like these)). Mr rnddude (talk) 21:07, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks :D R00b07 (talk) 21:11, 3 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I think I made it crystal clear that I have no issue with new editors simply because they are new editors. It was clear enough in my opening comments, and I reiterated it later. Nevertheless that's how my comments have been characterized, thus derailing the discussion and making it impossible for anything positive to come of it. A relatively new editor apparently assumed I must be talking about them, they being a relatively new editor, and reacted defensively. At some point this issue needs to be discussed seriously and calmly, but I now see this is not the place to do that and I apologize for bringing it up. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  04:06, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Dhaka Hostage Crisis, ISIS Claims Responsibility
Recent Developments: (http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/01/asia/bangladesh-dhaka-shooting/)

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


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

This attack already seems more definitive than Orlando, and it just happened. Here's a list of News Sources calling it an Islamist attack -


 * http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/03/world/asia/bangladesh-hostage-standoff.html
 * http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/07/02/bangladesh-hostage-standoff-dhaka-rescue-mission-terrorist-attack/86630932/
 * http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/02/asia/bangladesh-dhaka-shooting/
 * http://www.reuters.com/article/us-bangladesh-attack-idUSKCN0ZH5HE
 * http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/01/gunmen-attack-restaurant-in-diplomatic-quarter-of-bangladeshi-ca/

Something that is terrifyingly noteworthy, terrorists started killing people who couldn't recite the Koran.

(http://indianexpress.com/article/world/world-news/dhaka-terrorist-attack-islamic-state-holey-artisan-bakery-death-toll-eyewitness-account-2889466/)

The Bangladeshi Interior Minister States that it was not ISIS, but "JMB", referring to Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen Bangladesh, which claims to represent Islamic State in Bangladesh. So, it's still a branch of the Islamic State. Source: (http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20160703/world/islamic-state-not-behind-dhaka-attacks-says-interior-minister.617652)

Here's a great op-ed piece on the denial of the rise of Islamist attacks in the country by the Bangladesh government. (http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/dhaka-attack-bangladesh-government-deny-islamist-terror-sheikh-hasina-isis-column-2892092)

Also, said " I'm 100% certain that until a reliable source says with confidence that it's an Islamist terrorist attack, it won't be included in the list."

Here is your 100% Proof.

Is there any editor that would like to doubt that this was an Islamist attack? Please respond.

R00b07 (talk) 00:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)


 * As I understand it, the prime minister of Bangladesh is blaming the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence while her home minister is blaming Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen Bangladesh. Still not the slam-dunk you think it is. Once again, what's the rush? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 00:38, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No rush, but I wanted to list the 5 credible sources linking it to Islamist Ideology. I also wanted to provide a good read on the Bangladeshi Government ignoring Islamist attacks in their country. Between the 5 sources I listed, it makes it seem 100% clear that this is an Islamist Attack. Once again, no rush to judgment is needed, (Wikipedia is not a newspaper, nor does it have to be pressed for time), but it's damn clear what it is. Maybe my argument wasn't a slam dunk, but instead, a good two pointer. R00b07 (talk) 00:52, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd say the point is moot, because another editor has beat you to it. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:12, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't remember that being there a few hours ago. It must have been added recently. Regardless, I wanted to list more sources to make sure that this doesn't get taken down 2 weeks from now. R00b07 (talk) 04:17, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Since the attack has a well sourced article of its own, it's probably not necessary to add more sources here, but feel free. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 11:44, 4 July 2016 (UTC)