Talk:Resorts World Manila attack

@ 2600:8800:ff04:c00:2169:c266:d9f6:9f08:
What is your resoning that the death toll should be 0? Others may answer, as well.--193.163.223.192 (talk) 21:36, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Terrorist attack?
Has anyone actually read that this may not be a terror attack ?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:42, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It's feels uneven how on this article ISIS need only claim responsibility to get credit, but on the manchester arena bombing talk page there was editor after editor saying that they couldn't call it ISIS just because ISIS claimed credit and that they needed reliable sources. They wouldn't even allow it to be called a terrorist attack for awhile. There seems to be a double standard based on where in the world these events happen.163.191.202.3 (talk) 17:12, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It may very well not be a terrorist attack, but so far ISIL has claimed responsibility (whether that be true or not) so they are regarded as the probable perpetrators until something else is proven. Inter&#38;anthro (talk) 22:53, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Sigh... this is why breaking news stories need a small waiting period to sort the facts. I find it terribly problematic that we cannot even confirm whether this is a coordinated attack by ISIL or a robbery gone wrong.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:43, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Amen. Don't worry, I'll get back to this idea sooner or later, and you'll get pinged.  E Eng  03:58, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * There is always premature news. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 08:30, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Since IS spokespersons (primarily from "IS Lanao" and Amaq) are still sticking by their claims that the attack was done in their name and denying the police claim as a "cover up", there is still reasonable suspicion until the suspect is identified. And yes, I know Twitter sources are dodgy, but it's indicative of the present lack of certainty on what happened. - 175.140.198.36 (talk) 12:26, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks like a terrorist attack claimed by ISIS, the fact that he committed suicide by self-immolation is more consistent with a terror attack than a botched robbery. Stealing casino chips seems to be an effort to mislead police into believing it was just a robbery. Many attacks are clandestine and establish cover stories such as robbery, mental illness, driving under influence, confusion over brake pedel, suicide by cop, anger at breakup or room-mate, road rage, etc. so that authorities will rule out terrorism at the same time ISIS claims credit. If police believe it was a robbery, then the cover story was successful in establishing deception. The article already includes that Trump has called it a terrorist attack though media appears to going with the robbery theory. Bachcell (talk) 20:47, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * the point of my comments was not to dispute if this is a robbery-gone-wrong or a terrorist attack. My ulterior motive was to allude to the absurdity of writing an article about a breaking news event when media outlets and investigations could not confirm what exactly had occurred in that resort. By the way, who is misleading police? ISIL? I do not know many terror groups that establish a "cover story" to conceal their true motives and then publicity claim responsibility for the act. Most, if not all, of these organizations want the publicity. And, no offense to Mr. Trump, but how does he know this is an act of terror? Is he leading a seperate investigation in the Philippines?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:37, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * @Bachcell: WP:NOR. Stick with what sources are presenting instead of speculating based on the sources. Until the investigation is conclusive, the last thing we need is more confusion from this uncertainty. - 219.92.203.42 (talk) 11:50, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Clandestine terror attacks to hide they are doing it but then they claim they did it? Sounds too much impossible with self-speculation. It's not like the world has run out of non-terrorism shooters and attackers. The body of the gunman is burnt beyond recognition and at most we have is an unclear picture and video of his on camera. Unless his identity is established which likely will take time, I think it's unlikely to found out if it was terrorism or the man was an ISIS-linked. 61.1.58.127 (talk) 17:29, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Leaning on one narrative in the absence of evidence is an expression of biases. The appropriate thing to do is to wait and see, because evidences will emerge eventually (this isn't MH 370, when all traces of clues are nearly absent). Again, we are not speculators, we simply lay out what others have claimed or speculated. The talk page is meant to discuss the validity of sources and the quality of writing, not a place to elaborate personal theories. - 219.92.203.42 (talk) 18:05, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, first of all, even the stereotypical "lone wolf", if radicalized by terrorist propaganda, is acting on their behalf, even if the terrorist organization didn't specifically give that exact guy marching orders - they still put out videos & literature saying "go commit terrorism". In fact, it's much easier (in terms of $ & getting past security) for them to do it this way, than to smuggle in one of their "official" guys from wherever their base of operations is - that's why they devote time & resources to doing it. If someone's committing terrorism on behalf of a particular group, it's effectively the same as if the group shipped in their own guys. It makes no difference to the innocent people killed. What, do you want him to carry an official ISIS membership card? Secondly, as others have pointed out, self-immolation is hardly the typical modus operandi of a mere robber (& I speak as someone who's studies criminology at the university level, & have been studying terrorism both in the military & after my retirement from the service). A robbery goes wrong, & you what, sit in prison for a while & learn to get better at it from your cellmates? I think it's too soon in the unfolding story to make a clear judgement one way or the other, but it seems a little fishy for this to be just a "simple" robbery gone bad. A robber does not go into this kind of situation seeking death - it's kind of hard to spend one's ill-gotten gains when you're dead. Jihadists, on the other hand, are looking to get their 72 virgins in heaven - they are actively seeking out death & the afterlife.CitationKneaded (talk) 22:45, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that I'm siding one narrative over the other, when I'm staying impartial to any theory? I give up. Go ahead and push the lone wolf jihadi narrative if you people want. I'm done with this eagerness for editors to place their chips on specific theories (no pun intended), and on Wikipedia no less. - 219.92.203.42 (talk) 00:55, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * "IS Marawi" has allegedly continued to take credit, claiming the suspect "converted" to Islam four months prior and warned them of the attack one week prior. Given the way the writing was distributed (through social media) with no other sources citing it, I highly doubt the its reliability. - 118.100.122.8 (talk) 08:42, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Regardless, if a local news source cares to report about it or verifies that it did in fact come from relevant affiliates of IS, it would be interesting to include it as a follow-up to the paragraph mentioning IS' claim of responsibility. The claim may be unsubstantiated, but it could either offer an alternate take of the incident or show that the militants are taking credit of something that has nothing to with them for attention. - 118.100.122.8 (talk) 02:08, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Not news concerns
Since this wasn't a terrorist attack, is it still notable? Seems like NOTNEWS to me.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 08:12, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * it's been covered by a lot of news outlets. Definitely is notable and people get a chance to know the facts here. It's unwise to limit notability to just terrorist attacks and that anyway is not the criteria for notability. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 08:28, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * WP:AFD if you don't think it's notable.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 08:40, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The death toll alone already makes it notable enough, terrorist attack or not. 30+ dead from smoke inhalation cause by arson is a big deal. And lesser fires still have articles; case in point. - 175.140.198.36 (talk) 12:15, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * This would more than likely be a snow keep if sent to AfD given the death toll and the widespread in depth coverage. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:27, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * It is too early to rule out a clandestine terrorist attack. If this was a terrorist attack, it was designed to hide any obvious links to a terorist motive so that an ISIS claim cannot be proven. Local police could be wrong, they only have not be able to establish a proven link, not rule out terrorism. It is especially suspect to suggest that such a significant attack with many more victims even if it is just a crime by a deranged mentally ill man than the average terror incident in Israel and declared to be a terror attack by the president of the United States is "not news concern". Wikipedia lacks rules to prevent when articles on obvious terrorist attacks always bring out a number of editors who attempt to delete it as not news or not notable criteria to whitewash even attacks that kill dozens claimed by ISIS. Bachcell (talk) 20:58, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't think a Wikipedia talk page is a great platform to express paranoia. - 219.92.203.42 (talk) 18:15, 3 June 2017 (UTC)


 * To be aware, the shooting has even revived movements against casinos and in general, gambling in the Philippines, and raised awareness on problem gambling, that have been the motive of the suspect here. The shooting has a significant effect, and I don't see any problem with the WP:NOTNEWS policy, if enduring notability is concerned. (Though I am a bit late to comment in this thread, the developments in the incident, and the reactions by others has been already accounted for the notability here).-TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 11:08, 9 June 2017 (UTC)


 * That's not the point. The response above was directed at User:Bachcell's wild guessing that the attack was really a jihadi operation and that there is a conspiracy on Wikipedia to prevent outright references to jihadism. Islamist militants in Mindanao can continue to bark on about how their faith influenced him to attack, but the evidences are already stacked against them. And as said above, the death toll alone already makes this incident worthy to have an article of; if articles of fires with lower death tolls continue to exist, this article should too. - 118.100.122.8 (talk) 01:58, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * ISIS being implicated is due to paranoia regarding ongoing Marawi crisis (where ISIS, under the Abu Sayyaf and Maute group) and reports sensational media (especially local language media, either in TV or tabloids), if I'm correct. The ISIS claims now are debunked as false, after it was discovered that the Resorts World Manila attack is led by by a debt-ridden gambling addict. And reports that ISIS is responsible is already present even before the article about this incident is created. And yes, the deaths alone will account for the notability here.-TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 12:59, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Not self-immolation
Self-immolation is a sacrifice, not just suicide by fire. The sources don't call it that either. Changed. Emellertid (talk) 11:05, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Who injured the gunman?
In the intro it says it was the police, while a few paragraphs down it says it was the security staff of the casino. Raykyogrou0  ( Talk ) 06:54, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * CCTV footage shows that it should be the police, given that they're part of the frontline of the assault into the casino and were armed with assault rifles. - 175.140.198.36 (talk) 12:17, 5 June 2017 (UTC)