Talk:List of terrorist incidents in August 2017

2017 Turku stabbing
The 2017 Turku stabbing entry has two problems:
 * 1) It makes the unverifiable claim that it is part of Islamic terrorism in Europe
 * 2) It contains a referenced phrase: "The assailant reportedly shouted 'Allahu Akbar'."


 * 1) This looks like WP:SYNTHESIS and should be removed. The fact that reliable sources say that 'Allahu Akbar' was reportedly hear is not the same as reliable sources calling it Islamic terrorism. Sources need to directly support claims made on Wikipedia, and here they don't. Turun Sanomat reports that the police know there is an ideological motive, but have specifically chosen not to disclose what ideology is that at this point. Consequentially, there is not much that reliable sources can work with, which explains their silence on the issue.
 * 2) Reliable sources also dispute this. One of the cited sources (Nyheter Idag) says: "According to Yle, the attacker might have shouted 'Allahu Akbar'. This is not confirmed by the Finnish police." ("Enligt Yle ska gärningsmännen ha skrikit ”Allahu Akbar”. Detta bekräftas inte av finsk polis.") The Mirror article, that two of the cited sources reference, says: "As he carried out the terrifying attack, cries of 'Allahu Akbar' were apparently heard - although many have argued on social media that the phrase sounds like "beware" in Finnish." Yle reports that "There is also uncertainty as to who is shouting on the video and what. Some hear 'allahu akbar', others 'varokaa' ['watch out', 'beware'] in plain and clear Finnish." ("Epävarmuutta on myös siitä, kuka videolla huutaa ja mitä. Joku kuulee videolla "allahu akbar", toinen kuulee "varokaa" selkeällä suomen kielellä.") According to WP:V, when reliable sources disagree, the discrepant views should be reported with due weight. I suggest modifying the phrase to: "A video from the scene was released with shouts of either 'Allahu Akbar' in Arabic or 'varokaa' [beware] in Finnish heard."


 * Thoughts? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:04, 20 August 2017 (UTC)


 * You could as well be claiming WP:SYNTH for statements like water is wet and 2+2=4. Yelling the takbir as a battlecry during a terrorist attack is a hallmark of Islamist terrorism and nothing else. Of course, one could hypothesize this attack to be a false flag, but there are no reliable sources to support such a notion. The interpretation of WP:SYNTH is generally more lax than yours in this type of list articles - this is due to the fact that scarce amounts of reliable sources exist for many entries in this list, not just for the Turku incident due to the silence of Finnish authorities. The situation described is a Middle Eastern North African Muslim screaming 'Allahu akbar' while perpetrating a terrorist attack, I doubt you'll ever find reliable sources stating that such would be Buddhist terrorism. The issue is that your criterion of needing sourcing for well-known and widely established equivalences is strangely strict and inconsistent, i.e. selectively for this Turku incident. The Turku stabbing would certainly pass as belonging to the Islamic terrorism in Europe conflict due to the current laxness of content criteria, and I don't think this tendency should be dissolved to fit arbitrary wishes and wills of various editors for their darling entry.
 * I get that some RS dispute what has actually been yelled, but other RS (e.g. ) do not mention the other possibility of 'varokaa' being yelled instead of 'Allahu akbar', and this should be respected. Also, your examples of sources disputing what is being yelled refer to social media discussion. I would prefer a rephrasing to something like "The assailant reportedly shouted 'Allahu akbar'.[sources here] This has been contested on social media, in which it has been suggested that the assailant shouted 'varokaa', i.e. beware in Finnish.[sources here]" --201.20.39.236 (talk) 20:01, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I suggest you read WP:Don't jump the gun. This is indeed WP:Original research. TompaDompa (talk) 02:23, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Respond to what I wrote with more than one line and don't regurgitate the same aforementioned blabber. Good luck arguing that this has nothing to do with Islam and pigs can fly. --201.20.39.236 (talk) 15:28, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No reliable source has mentioned the suspect screaming religious stuff after it was disputed and no reliable source has cared about such claims after the first day - since it could not be verified. Furthermore, police authorities have not commented on the substance of the motive apart from it being idealogical. Ergo, cannot be confirmed as Islamic/Islamist at this point. Shadowdasher (talk) 16:10, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The incident is treated as a terrorist attack by the police. It's enough for me to put it on the list CNN. It's still treated as such today YLE. Givibidou (talk) 17:06, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Out-of-scope entry
The 2017 Buckingham Palace incident of 25 August does not belong in this list as it is out-of-scope. Despite what it says in its entry here, there is no reliably sourced support for the assertion that the incident involved a stabbing, or even an attack and as there has been no conviction we cannot assert anything about the perpetrator or whether this incident will be confirmed as terrorism, or not. Therefore I propose removing this entry. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:09, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No further comments, so removed as proposed. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:31, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Flags
I believe that MOS:FLAG and WP:FLAGPLACEHOLDER describe why flags should not be used in the list table in this article, so I propose that we remove them. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:26, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I've started a section to discuss this from the MOS:FLAG point of view at [Flags in location columns of terrorism list articles]. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:57, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Mistake
I apologize to Martinnorheim. He did not delete content as I said in edit summary. It was HastyBriar321. I made a mistake. Givibidou (talk) 12:22, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Charlottesville "attack"
Per WP:BLPCRIME, every time a suspect in a mass-casualty incident is captured alive, we must assume that they are innocent of the crimes they are accused of until actually proven guilty by a court of law. The Charlottesville crash is no exception. HastyBriar321 (talk) 21:48, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Whether the suspect is guilty or not, the attack does not meet the definition of 'terrorism' by either dictionary or WP:TERROR. Nor are any WP:RS being quoted as terming it as 'terrorism'. As such, it should not be placed on the list. Loopy30 (talk) 03:02, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Whoa, whoa, wait, where in that talk-page archive does it actually say that? I'm all in for keeping this out of the list for now, but if the driver is found guilty of murder and the crash is found to be deliberate, wouldn't that be enough justification for adding it to the list? The Charleston church shooting is in all terrorism-related lists for near-identical reasons. HastyBriar321 (talk) 04:51, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * @Loopy30 HastyBriar321 has been blocked from editing. But just after I corrected his damages, DeFacto deleted the Charlottesville attack again. This is the third time I notice that some user deletes this attack with no valid reason. This is quite upsetting. Givibidou (talk) 13:31, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I gave the reason for my edit in my edit summary. To add this incident as terrorism you need to demonstrate that is is actually considered to be terrorism. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:24, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I see you have restored the disputed content, stating in your edit summary "There has been a consensus about this". Please show us where the consensus that this was a terrorist incident is, and please explain why you have not supplied an RS to support that for the entry in this article. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:32, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * @DeFacto It was a deliberate and poitically-motivated attack by a non-state actor. There is a consensus, because nobody disputes this, except you and the blocked user. Givibidou (talk) 15:36, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * where is that consenus documented? And it isn't just me and "the blocked user", made the same point as me above. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:48, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, I misread his comment, my bad. The thing is you have to prove one of this statements to be deleted of the list :
 * - It wasn't a violent attack
 * - It wasn't politically-motivated (He was mentally ill or he wanted to kill somebody in particular --> murder, criminal attack)
 * - It wasn't carried by a non-state violent actor (The CIA is behind this)
 * Givibidou (talk) 16:27, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * according to WP:ONUS, "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." One way that might help to achieve that is if you provide RS support that characterises it as a terrorist incident. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:37, 14 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Edit : Givibidou (talk) 16:28, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Edit 2 : the blocked user is HastyBriar321 Givibidou (talk) 16:33, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I said it's a politically-motivated violent attack by a non-state actor, characterising it as a terrorist incident as stated in the beginning of the article : This is a timeline of terrorist attacks which took place in August 2017, including attacks by violent non-state actors for political, religious, or ideological motives. If you think this is incorrect anyway, delete. Givibidou (talk) 17:22, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * He targeted a protest, because of their political orientation and actions. His motivation was political, he didn't target an individual. Givibidou (talk) 17:29, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * let's wait and see if there are other opinions, but I would expect the police or prosecutors to call it a terrorist incident if they believed that it was, and for the RSes to report it as such. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:36, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Attorney General Jeff Sessions declared the attack meets the definition of terrorism 1. I found no official source denying it. Givibidou (talk) 01:31, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Ahh, - what's in a name? The definition of what the term terrorism encompasses and excludes was debated as the very first topic on the project talk page in 2006 (link again here). That page also contains a link to Use of the word terrorism (policy development) from 2004 which has much more detail on the definition of the term. In the present case (C-ville), are there any RS reporting this as a terrorist attack? Or are they treating it as a tragic example of protester/counter-protestor violence (such as Newsweek here)? Until multiple RS categorize this incident as a terrorist attack, we should not be classifying it as such or we are departing from NPOV and starting WP:OR. In the meantime, without consensus to restore this bold edit, the revert should stand and the incident not added back until consensus to do so is achieved in this discussion. Floor is open... 'cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 22:18, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Attorney General Jeff Sessions declared the attack meets the definition of terrorism 1, so did Democrat and Republicans 2. No official source is denying the fact it's a terrorist attack. I didn't find the statement excluding counter-protestor violence from terrorism category on the pages you've cited. Can you be more explicit? Givibidou (talk) 01:26, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, the US Attorney General has said that he believes it to be an act of terrorism, and the CBS news poll reports a majority of the American public agree. However, the Washington Post article goes on to say that the final determination is/was subject to a further federal investigation. I do not know if this investigation is now completed. The actual prosecution of the suspect will proceed on the charge selected that is most likely to result in a conviction, not necessarily a terrorism-related charge even if though the incident was terrorist-related (see VOA article). Several editorials have published opinion pieces declaring it to be terrorism, this could certainly become the consensus view in the media. But in the fullness of time, will the event still be viewed as such? Is it too soon reach this conclusion yet? This is why we are looking for multiple RS and third party analyses to support the classification. Keep in mind that if our encyclopedia uses this definition, then what else becomes included in this definition - attacks on protest marches in Northern Ireland, Chinese/Uyghur clashes, Muslim/Hindu riots during the partition of India, etc? Loopy30 (talk) 15:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The article you've cited was written 2 days after the attack, is there something more recent? It's quite normal to question the nature of the attack when it's fresh, it's not something surprising. Givibidou (talk) 12:44, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Attacks on protest marches in Northern Ireland, Chinese/Uyghur clashes, Muslim/Hindu riots during the partition of India are out of subjects. But if they fullfill the criterias, if there was a vehicular attack on a peaceful protest, why not? Givibidou (talk) 12:47, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Targeted people were peaceful protestors. The Guardian : "Witnesses said those hit by the car were peacefully protesting against the white supremacist rally and footage showed the vehicle crashing into another car, throwing people over the top of it." 1. Givibidou (talk) 15:44, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Sources must call it terrorism explicitly for inclusion on this and related lists. We cannot use original research to claim it to be terrorism.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 15:56, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Attorney General Jeff Sessions declared the attack meets the definition of terrorism 1, so did Democrat and Republicans 2. No official source is denying the fact it's a terrorist attack. Givibidou (talk) 15:58, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

At first, sources weren't enough, I've been told that it doesn't fullfill WP's criterias to enter terrorism category. Then I explained why the attack falls in terrorism category according to WP's criterias. Then if the sources and WP's criterias aren't sufficient, what is needed? Givibidou (talk) 16:17, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Sessions calling it terrorism seems good enough since he's the Attorney General. The question is if we need to attribute the label to him and other lawmakers (who are not law enforcement). Sorry, I'm jumping into the conversation, so I'm not sure about the past discussions. IMO, if it's been called terrorism by the top lawyer in the USA and meets the criteria, it should be included.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 16:21, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay thanks, you're more open-minded. What do you mean by attribute the label to him? Citing the article in the references for this attack? Yes I think it's worth mentioning it. Givibidou (talk) 20:02, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Attribution would be something like "Jeff Sessions described the event as terrorism" and then add a citation.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 21:26, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's necessary, we haven't made such attribution for other attacks. It's already in the article treating the far right rally. Givibidou (talk) 11:17, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

To close the debate. He can't be charged with terrorism as there is no such Federal Crime. See this website, Lawfare (blog). Don't be put off by the word 'blog', read its article. It's affiliated with te Brookings Institution and has some heavy hitters writing for it. It says " Domestic terrorism is not an independent federal crime, in part because there is no official list of domestic terrorist groups. The State Department maintains a list of “Foreign Terrorist Organizations” that tells law enforcement, businesses, and ordinary citizens which groups are illicit even if they agree with the cause as a whole. One of the all-important material support statutes uses this list as part of its criteria for when support for terrorism is occurring. To treat domestic terrorism like international terrorism, the United States would need a separate “Domestic Terrorist Organization” list, presumably compiled by the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Bureau of Investigation—the federal agencies that currently handle matters that might fall into the category of domestic terrorism—with input from other agencies." It points out why such a list would be tricky, and that some states have tried cases under state terrorist laws. It's a good read. Givibidou (talk) 15:49, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello Givibidou, that was indeed an interesting and well-written article by Daniel Byman in the journal Foreign Affairs. In it however, while first noting the statement of US Attorney General Sessions that "it does meet the definition of domestic terrorism", he then spends the rest of the article explaining how the US response to domestic terrorism is different from foreign terrorism. He notes that this incident was rightly treated as a murder/hit-and-run and not as (yet) a terrorist attack despite many calling for it to be labeled as a 'terrorist attack'. Further, he says that if the US government was to start treating domestic terrorism incidents as they do for foreign terrorism, such a label should be more strictly defined and applied sparingly.
 * The comments by Jeff Sessions were from an address made only two days after the incident when emotions were heated over the lack of official condemnation of the attack. The comments do not appear to have been incorporated in any government statement or report since, nor has RS media subsequently categorized this as a terrorist attack. Perhaps they were only a personal opinion, such as that expressed by US national security advisor Lt. Gen McMaster who, in an NBC News interview, said that "of course" it was terrorism (as an opinion) but would not "classify it as such" when asked directly, instead deferring to the (ongoing?) investigation to determine the official position. Let's wait then until, and if, a time when a consensus of RS media categorizes this as a terrorist attack.
 * The inclusion of this attack on the article page has now been removed by three other editors (DeFacto, TheGracefulSlick and a sock(?)). I may soon be the fourth unless RS media starts to pick up on official government statements that this is now considered a terrorist attack. 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 00:52, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Same discussion on the page of the rally, same conclusion, it's terrorism. WP is not here to discuss sources WP:OR. This is becoming ridiculous, I'm out. Givibidou (talk) 16:56, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

You seem to be new on Wikipedia. Do you want to explain your removal of Charlotttesville attack? Givibidou (talk) 15:34, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. I wrote it on the reason I took it out which maybe you did not read: "There's no consensus about this. There's only allegations of terrorism. The attack still cannot be proven to fit the definitions of domestic terrorism. Wait until the court case is over." That is to say it still hasn't been proven that the attack had political motivations, thus it does not fit the definition of terrorism under US guides, UN guides or Wikipedia guides. What Jeff Sessions said is irrelevant as what he said is neither law nor said as a judge in a court case. Saying he's right just because he's the Attorney General is a fallacy of authority. The guides on US law and wikipedia say innocent until proven guilty, and as such the burden of proof is in proving the guy that did this is a terrorist AKA had political motivations, and therefore your best chance to do so is to wait until the court case is over. Keeping this attack as a terrorist incident until then is a complete disregard of the concept of innocent until proven guilty and is done so with no evidence whatsoever. JGDiaz (talk)
 * This issue has been discussed on two talk page. Official authorities described the event as terrorist, Wikipedia is not here to discuss the sources. OR. Givibidou (talk) 14:17, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * This issue did not reach a conclusion as far as I can see. I have yet to see any actual proof that the event is a terrorist attack. Wikipedia is not here to discuss the sources. OR, and your use of that link is irrelevant. Therefore you should revert your undo and keep the Charlottesville attack removed. JGDiaz (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:58, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the problem is in your first sentence : "as far as I can see". If you can't see it, it's your problem, not Wikipedia's problem and I suggest you to let this article the way it is. Givibidou (talk) 13:50, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * There must be about 20 users trying to remove this attack from terrorism category before you. If this didn't happen on the first 20 attempts, it won't happen on the 21st attempt. But good luck. I don't know what's so speciall with Charlottesville's attack, but there's no attack in the terrorism category attracting so much terrorism's revisionists. Givibidou (talk) 14:54, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It's because it's a living person and it hasn't been proven to be a terrorist attack. Enough anyway. If I remove it again you're just gonna undo my changes. I will get a third opinion. JGDiaz (talk) 00:32, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Nevermind it got rejected real quick. I'll continue other resolution procedures then. JGDiaz (talk) 17:05, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Did you guys ever reach a conclusion? What do you think of all this?
 * No consensus was reached here and, as Givibidou points out, is unlikely to be reached here until an RfC settles it on the main incident page (Unite the Right rally). If you go through all the archives of that talk page, you will gain additional insight as to the nature of the dispute. Loopy30 (talk) 17:42, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Here's the thing. As far as I can see there's no consensus neither here nor there. I consider then that Charlottesville should remain removed until that is reached because people looking at this list look at it as if it were fact. That's what I propose. JGDiaz (talk) 05:35, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

RfC: terrorist incidents list criteria
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of terrorist incidents. – Levivich 18:01, 10 August 2019 (UTC)