Talk:Terrorism in the United States/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Volunteer Marek's chart on extremist murders in the US is misleading for the topic of US Terrorism

There are multiple issues with @Volunteer Marek:'s chart on "Extremist murders" in the US.

1) The chart is titled "Ideologically motivated incidents of murder by category (2008-2017)", but the ADL data shows a very different picture.

— Check for example the year 2013: go to the heat-map, set the "from" and "to" years to 2013.

— Have a look at the "Incident type" box and click on the icon (i) next to it. The ADL site should display the "Definitions of Incident Types:", e.g.: for "Extremist Murders", the following definition should be displayed: "Extremist Murders: Killings connected to members of extremist groups and adherents of extremist ideologies. Includes both ideological and non-ideological killings..."

— The "Type of incident" column in the table right below the map will need to have both "Terrorist Plot/Attack" and "Extremist Murder" attributes to qualify as "Ideologically motivated murder" (or terrorism). If you only set "Incident type" field to "Terrorist Plot/Attack" you'll get both foiled plots that did not result in murders and actual murders. If you only set "Incident type" to "Extremist Murder", you'll get all murders committed by the tracked extremists which is a larger set than that of ideologically motivated murders (as stated on the ADL page).

— For 2013, Marek's chart shows 21 "incidents" in total, which is the total number of incidents which have resulted in murder, and means that ideologically motivated and non-ideologically motivated cases have not been properly separated before generating the chart.

— Here are some examples that are not labeled by ADL as terrorism but are labeled as murder:

1.1) "10/25/2013 Ingot, CA - White supremacist Joshua McCormick killed two people during a robbery";

1.2) "8/14/2013 Waltham, MA - White supremacist Jared Remy, who had an "88" tattoo on his neck, murdered his girlfriend";

1.3) "8/13/2013 Tulsa, OK - Ronnie Dean Haskins III murdered a man who reportedly patted Haskins's daughter on her behind and made inappropriate comments";

1.4) "12/30/2013 San Diego, CA - San Diego Skins member Joseph Anthony Hill murdered one person and injured another in a feud over disrespecting Hill's girlfriend and a drug debt"; etc

— For 2013, ADL will only lists 3 ideologically motivated incidents which have resulted in murder: two by right-wing extremists and one by Islamist-extremists but, for the same year, the total number of murder incidents will be 21 and the total number of terrorist attacks & plots will be 14; the number of incidents that is relevant for this page on Terrorism in the USA (e.g.: the number of ideologically motivated murder incidents) should be the intersection of the two categories and can't possibly be larger than the smallest of the two (it can't be 21 like in Marek's chart).

2) Also, and this is more important: according to the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO), the total number of domestic terrorist attacks (from September 12, 2001 through December 31, 2016) for Right-wing extremists is 62; for Islamist-extremists is 23. The GAO report is presented by the fact-checkers at PolitiFact as well.

In Marek's chart, for a much smaller time-span (e.g.: 2008-2017), the number of terrorist attacks is claimed to be greater than 200; this happens because the ADL data is misinterpreted (e.g.: the "Definitions of Incident Types" provided by ADL are not correctly accounted for)

3) In the past, other editors (e.g.: @Kluball:) have raised valid concerns about Marek's chart. They've correctly noticed that the chart misrepresents the data significantly. I've also requested, more than a month ago, details on the process to reproduce the charts. The requests have been unanswered. Why are we still keeping that chart? Especially when better, more informative, more accurate (and fact-checked) ones are available? (e.g.: PolitiFact provides one such chart)

Mcrt007 (talk) 08:51, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: Courtesy ping. O3000 (talk) 13:00, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

First, the chart shows 20 murders, not 21 for 2013. This is exactly the same as the HEAT Map. And these are *just* "extremist murders".

Second, NO, a murder does not have to also be a "Terrorist plot" to count as ideologically motivated. This is WP:OR, a standard you invented. What matters is that the incidents by ideology are all counted consistently.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:50, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Wow, even when presented with overwhelming evidence, you misrepresent the facts. First, for 2013, your chart shows 21 murder incidents (20 for right-wing-extremists and one for islamist-extremist)

Second, this page is supposed to be about "Terrorism in the United States" (ideologically motivated murders qualify as such, non-ideologically motivated murders do not), not about your arbitrary interpretations of clearly defined concepts (terrorism, ideologically motivated murder) or the fields in the ADL data.

ADL provides the following definitions of "Extremist Murders" (under "Incident Type" -> "Definitions of Incident Types"): "Extremist Murders: Killings connected to members of extremist groups and adherents of extremist ideologies. Includes both ideological and non-ideological killings. Does not include accidental killings (such as a white supremacist who kills someone in a DUI incident)". Your chart is titled "Ideologically motivated incidents of murder", yet you clearly include both ideologically and non-ideologically motivated incidents of murder (even though ADL's data comes with very clear disclaimers). You're the one doing WP:OR while ignoring ADL's term-definitions and, what's worse, your numbers (methodologically incorrect and misleading for an article about Terrorism) are massively contradicted by fact-checkers as well (e.g.: PolitiFact) Mcrt007 (talk) 21:26, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Your attack-dog attitude isn't doing you any favors. As the Politifact article points out, the data is skewed by the Pulse nightclub incident, which accounts for about 40% all deaths caused by radical Islamists. Refactoring the chart to conceal a single outlier is sloppy at best, and deceitful at worst, and assuming that your own motives are pure and someone else must therefore be intentionally misleading is, well, not doing you any favors, like I said.

There are valid, good-faith reasons why it's preferable to highlight incidents instead of deaths. You don't have to agree with those reasons to recognize them. There is, obviously, a reason these statistics start on Sept. 12, 2001, and conveying accurate information means judging the larger picture. Grayfell (talk) 04:06, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Grayfell - nothing you've mentioned has anything to do with Marek's chart problems that I have pointed out. His chart data (which you don't seem to understand) was not even considering the amount of deaths per incident. Marek's chart was claiming to count the number of ideologically motivated "(murder) incidents" which is, basically, the number of terrorist attacks that have resulted in at least one death. The problem with Marek's chart is that, in addition to the number of ideologically motivated incidents (which have resulted in at least one murder), it is also counting the non-ideologically motivated incidents (and these are significantly skewing his results).

His chart is not wrong for just one year as you imply, his chart is wrong for all years.

PolitiFact shows the number of terrorist incidents in the pie-chart (not in the bar-chart like Marek).

For 2001-09-01-->2016-12-31 PolitiFact counts 85 incidents: 62 incidents for right-wing extremists (74%) and 23 for Islamist-extremists (26%)

For about half that time-window, 2008-2017, Marek's chart shows more than 200 incidents (which have resulted in at least one death) which is not backed by any serious source providing data on US terrorism incidents (including United States Government Accountability Office).

Conveying accurate information, I'd dare say means not manipulating the data for whatever you imagine to be a larger picture.

Thanks, however, for bring into discussion the number of incidents vs the number of deaths: this is another major methodological flaw in Marek's chart (which I did not touch upon in the previous posts). Statistics of Violence are Fat-Tailed (Nassim Taleb, Paul Embrechts, Pasquale Cirillo, Raphael Douady, and Yaneer Bar Yam's group at New England Complex System Institute talk/write about these a lot) and, for fat-tailed distributions, showing both the incidents and their impact is actually the correct and scientifically rigorous thing to do (e.g.: you don't talk about the incidents of wars in the past 100 years without also giving the numbers of victims; and you don't talk about the wars in the past 100 years but exclude WW2 because you think it is an outlier). PolitiFact is also more rigorous here: they show both the numbers of incidents (attacks) and the numbers of deaths. Mcrt007 (talk) 05:46, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I changed the chart title to address your concerns. As far as your "critique" of the chart, it's essentially your own critique of the ADL data. Feel free to take it up with them. But do it somewhere else, since we have a WP:NOR policy. Likewise, if you wish to make a chart out of the Politifact data, you're welcome to do so (and which metric is more relevant depends on the question being asked, and there really isn't an objective way to deal with outliers ("rigorous" is not necessarily objective or even always reasonable).Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:01, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

(and Taleb thinks EVERYTHING is fat-tailed)Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:10, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

The title at the top of your chart still reads "Incidents of murder by extremist ideology (2008-2017)" (but this is not what the chart is about)

The bar-charts show the same misleading information I've criticized in my first post (e.g.: you still include both ideologically motivated and non-ideologically motivated incidents which are not "incidents of murder by ideology"). You provide pseudo-scientific original research that completely ignores the data-definitions on the ADL site, you give your own arbitrary interpretations to the data-fields and, what's worse, the information you display is contradicted by the data from United States Government Accountability Office and the fact-checkers at PolitiFact (which I have linked to in my first post). Mcrt007 (talk) 09:23, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

The title of the chart accurately reflects what ADL data represents, your own personal WP:OR not withstanding. ADL is the one that includes what YOU think are "non-ideologically motivated incidents" (presumably because it isn't always clear as to what is and what isn't "ideologically motivated"). There's no "arbitrary interpretation" anywhere here, mine or anyone else's. And as already pointed out while YOU may think that the ADL data is "contradicted" (sic) by some other source that doesn't make it so, and it's not actually true. Different definitions and operalizations of concepts will naturally give rise to different numbers. Nothing is stopping you from making a chart based on some other data.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:54, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

The whole chart only reflects your personal interpretation which is misleading and totally ignores ADL's data-definitions. If ideological and non-ideological incidents can't be clearly separated, as you seem to imply, then you can't know which and how many of the incidents are ideological in nature, and the chart should not belong on a page about Terrorism. Anyway, what you're doing here (in spite of the critical feedback you've received for more than a month, on the flaws of your chart, from various editors), looks more and more like fraud. Mcrt007 (talk) 18:31, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

The definitional problems are compounded by the fact that the ADL is too controversial to be a reliable source. Half of its wikipedia page is devoted to that. Consequently any presentation of its data should not be used. ProgressMeansYou (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:55, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

They do seem to have quite a history of controversies, thanks for pointing to this fact (though I'm more worried about deliberate attempts at misinterpreting whatever data they provide). Mcrt007 (talk) 23:47, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Questionable anon edits...

In this edit, earlier today, 2601:881:8102:63DF:84BA:DBA:5E75:D0F1 excised a one sentence paragraph, that said:

In 2018, every single ideologically motivated murder was linked to right-wing extremism.<ref>[https://www.adl.org/murder-and-extremism-2018]</ref>

Anon's edit summary said: "No terrorism related deaths in 2018".

I checked what the reference said. 2nd paragraph said "2018 was a particularly active year for right-wing extremist murders: Every single extremist killing — from Pittsburgh to Parkland — had a link to right-wing extremism."

Anon, murders, "linked to right-wing extremism"? That is terrorism. So Anon's claim that there were "no terrorism related deaths in 2018" is incorrect, unless one takes the position that ideologically motivated murders by the right wing, that would be considered terrorism if committed by the left, or by jihadists, are not terrorism.

The edit summary I used was "revert excision at odds with refs". This should have been a clue to anyone considering reverting my reversion to check the reference for themself.

An anonymous contributor, 129.100.255.32 reverted my reversion, with the edit summary "rv vandalism - editor appears to be reverting on the basis that IP editors contributions are not worthy" As above, my reversion was not vandalism, as an experienced contributor could have determined from reading my edit summary, and checking the reference for themselves.

I think I know who 129.100.255.32 is. They made an excision indistinguishable from vandalism a few days ago, and is unwilling or unable to accept the possibility that they haven't yet made enough edits here to proceed without a lot more caution. They used the exact same edit summary to revert another instance where I reverted a questionable anonymous edit.

Why am I reverting the questionable edits of anonymous contributors? Don't I have better things to do than go around reverting questionable edits from anonymous contributors? Yes, of course I do. But I also have several wikistalkers.

A year ago two wikistalkers who were hounding me were both indefinitely blocked. They were both unwilling to accept that their indefinite blocks were the community's judgement that their contributions were not positive. They both continue to harass me.

One of them logs on, using a range of IP addresses, and randomly reverts my edits. While they failed to appreciate they hadn't really mastered our policies, they mastered the art of leaving misleading edit summaries, that give the surface appearance there is a genuine policy problem, so long as no one actually looks at the details.

What this means is that, once every day or two, I have to go through my watchlist, and see if there are any suspicious looking IP edits to any of the articles I've worked on. I am a very prolific contributor, so there are 30,000 articles on my watchlist.

When I go through my watchlist, looking for suspicious edits from anonymous contributors, most of those edits are OK, so I leave them alone. But I come across some questionable edits from anonymous contributors who aren't one of my wikistalkers. I don't ignore them, I revert them.

So, no, I am not simply reverting valid anonymous contributions "on the basis that IP editors contributions are not worthy" Frankly, anon's comment is a lapse from the collegiality experience contributors should aim for.

The anonymous contributor who is complaining here seems unwilling or unable to appreciate that their edits, the ones I reverted, were indistinguishable from vandalism.

Sadly, this anonymous contributor was unwilling or unable to check the reference in question, here. They were unwilling or unable to recognize or check references they should have checked in other questionable edits, as well.

Do i think this anonymous contributor is a hopeless case? If they are a brand new anon, not one of my earlier wikistalkers, no, I don't think they are a hopeless case -- so long as they can recognize they are fallible, along with the rest of us. Our policies are complicated. We have to be prepared to explain ourselves. We have to be able to accept that no one ever fully masters our complicated policies, because they are in a constant state of flux. They have to accept that we all have to be able to be humble enough to consider every question, every challenge, as a teachable moment, which this anon has not been able to do, so far.

I would have left this note on their user talk page, except, for some reason, they are unwilling or unable to create a named wiki-ID, and they keep jumping from anonymous IP number to anonymous IP number.

Oh yeah, WIKISTALKING is strongly frowned upon. They should stop doing that, too. Geo Swan (talk) 01:32, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

POV / Misinterpretation, of 2018 terrorism data, in article lead

A new paragraph has been added to the article lead which claims to quote ADL article and currently states: "In 2018, every single ideologically motivated murder was linked to right-wing extremism. The killings increased to 50 deaths from 37 in 2017, making 2018 the fourth deadliest year on record for extremist murders since 1970."

The above is a false statement, since the ADL article talks about something else, e.g.: "In 2018, domestic extremists killed at least 50 people in the U.S., a sharp increase from the 37 extremist-related murders documented in 2017, though still lower than the totals for 2015 (70) and 2016 (72). The 50 deaths make 2018 the fourth-deadliest year on record for domestic extremist-related killings since 1970."

As mentioned in previous discussions, ADL numbers include both terrorism related (e.g.: "ideological motivated") and non-terrorism related murders (see: "Incident Type" -> "Definitions of Incident Types", on the ADL site). Also, the above link gives a total number of 72+70+37+50=229 murders for 2015-->2018, which is much higher than the total number of terrorism murders provided by fact-checking organizations and the U.S. Government Accountability Office for 12-Sep-2001-->31-Dec-2017 (e.g.: 225 murders)

Currently, no reliable source seems to back the claim that, in 2018, there have been 50 ideologically motivated murders in the US. Mcrt007 (talk) 17:50, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Sigh. Not this again. See WP:OR.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:47, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Stop abusing the WP:OR definition to fit your agenda. By deliberately mixing ideologically and non-ideologically incidents, you're pushing your personal interpretation on what is terrorism (an interpretation that is not supported by any reliable source). The Pittsburgh synagogue shooting and the Tallahassee shooting are the only incidents confirmed as terrorism so far, in 2018.

Your first sentence "In 2018, every single ideologically motivated murder was linked to right-wing extremism" is (so far) correct. The second sentence, which you copy/paste from a much large document provided by ADL (e.g.: "the killings increased to 50 deaths from 37 in 2017, making 2018 the fourth deadliest year on record for extremist murders since 1970") talks about all killings (both ideological and non-ideological, as ADL mentions in their documentation). Here are more examples of murders committed by extremist (of the total of 50 deaths), that ADL documents (in 2018) but does not label as terrorism:

1) "Jeremy James Shaw, 39, of Tacoma, allegedly conspired with his wife, Lorena Shaw, 37, to kill a Renton, Washington, man and steal his house and property. Shaw was a white supremacist who owned a business called Aryan Enterprises."

2) "Demetrius Alexander Brown, allegedly a self-proclaimed sovereign citizen, shot and killed a man at an automobile repair shop following a dispute."

3) "Richard Starry, 61, shot and killed four people who were family members or family connections in two locations before killing himself. According to a media source, Starry, who had an extensive criminal record, had belonged to a white supremacist group while in prison."

4) "Joshua Daniel Miller, reportedly involved with militia and Three Percenter groups, was arrested for the shooting death of his ex-wife's partner."

5) "Malachi Qaadir Dorns, 19, an alleged self-proclaimed sovereign citizen, reportedly used a knife to kill his brother and wound his mother following an argument."

6) "Roger Melvin Tackett, 44, walked into the residence of an acquaintance and shot him to death during a dispute. According to poice, Tackett has multiple white supremacist tattoos."

Mcrt007 (talk) 00:16, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

2017 Portland Train Stabbing and Congressional Baseball Shooting

Is there a good reason I’m overlooking that the 2017 Portland train stabbing and Congressional Baseball shooting are not included? They both appear to meet the relevant definitions pretty clearly. If there isn’t any objection to my doing so here by then, I’ll include them in a couple of days. Harsimaja (talk) 20:09, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Title change

I think a better title for this article would be "List of terrorist incidents in the United States" because it appears to be more of a list than an article on US terrorism. Untitled.docx (talk) 15:59, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Consider adding 'Bloody Monday' 1855 religious motivated riots, deaths and arson.Wgspeed (talk) 20:56, 4 June 2019 (UTC) source 'wikipedia' 4 Jun 2019

Cool that right wing terrorism is split up into 3 different groups so its not obviously the biggest

Wikipedia is broken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.57.182.62 (talk) 11:31, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Antifa

You are invited to participate in Talk:Antifa (United States)#RfC: antifa and terrorism, a discussion about whether to include that activities by American anti-fascists were labeled as domestic terrorism by the Trump administration. R2 (bleep) 22:22, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

missing arson attacks on gop office

https://eaglerising.com/62164/gop-office-fire/

this is just one article and there's another one in 2016

https://www.snopes.com/news/2016/10/17/republican-campaign-headquarters-in-north-carolina-firebombed/

i don't remember the details on these specifically, i'm not much of a wikieditor. i remembered these events though, because arson and failed bomb attempts are the most common forms of modern terrorism against the right. would you consider the bombs planted on the confederate statues as terrorist plots as well even though they were disarmed?

The source calls this vandalism, not terrorism. Don't know why you brought up bombs -- but this isn't relevant to this article. O3000 (talk) 00:00, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

ADL Heatmap

How in God's name did the ADL heatmap make it into the article? It is well known to be an unreputable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.134.203.20 (talk) 12:02, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Can we link to the vetting process?

I think we should have a statement linking to the vetting process of foreign travelers to the US. My point is that the number of terrorist from Islamic militants would obviously be lower due to the vetting process after 911. So I believe that point needs to be made. Notabot1971 (talk) 03:49, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this exceptional claim? O3000 (talk) 12:45, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Fake graph

According to this article "December 2, 2015 San Bernardino attack, San Bernardino, California: A couple opens fire at a Christmas party, leaving fourteen dead." The graph showing terror deaths says that only about 5 people were killed by jihadist terrorism in 2015. This obviously a lie. Strambotik (talk) 06:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC) The graph also totally contradicts this other passage from this article:

• 115 Far right inspired terror incidents. 35% of these were foiled (meaning no attack happened) and 29% resulted in fatalities. These terror incidents caused 79 deaths.
• 63 Islamist inspired terror incidents. 76% of these were foiled (meaning no attack happened) and 13% resulted in fatalities. These terror incidents caused 90 deaths.
• 19 incidents inspired by left-wing ideologies (and eco-terrorism). 20% of these were foiled (meaning no attack happened) and 10% resulted in fatalities. These terror incidents caused 7 deaths. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strambotik (talk • contribs) 06:23, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

File:GRAPH REMOVED.png was not helpful or unnecessary. Please discuss the matter. You can ping Volunteer Marek to discuss the creation of the graph and explain how it may be misleading. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 08:55, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

2016 Dallas police officer shootings - terrorism or not?

I have been wondering if we should include the 2016 shooting of Dallas police officers in the article. The page for the shootings does describe it as an act of terrorism, though it seems it wasn't clear at the time if this was the case (with some viewing the shooting more as a common criminal killing). However, several sources on the page describe it as terrorism, so I think it should be included, though admittedly the page itself seems a little uncertain as to whether or not it was terrorism, simply stating that "Many have characterized the attack as an act of domestic terrorism" and not using the term "terrorism" particularly often. However I noticed that it has been four years since it happened and it is not on the list, despite Wikipedia normally being pretty good at getting this sort of things down (lots of somewhat obscure incidents are listed here). However, do any other Wikipedians have any thoughts on the matter?

If no responses occur within a few days, I shall go ahead and add it in. Sdio7 (talk) 23:25, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

That sounds like a serious incident, and its motivation was political or ideological (maybe even racial), which could support mentioning the incident on this page. Mcrt007 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:07, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Criteria for this list

I've taken a recent entry, the Monsey Hanukkah stabbing to WP:RSN#Is a statement by Governor Cuomo enough to all an incident terrorism at Terrorism in the United States ?. I removed it twice and it was reverted. There's only one source, a statement by Cuomo at the time, and the mentally ill perpetrator is now in a mental facility after being deemed unfit to stand trial. There was a related RfC[1] which determined that only if "the incident is notable (has a stand-alone article), and (2) the consensus of WP:RSes describe the incident as "terrorism". were needed for inclusion". That was for a different standalone list, List of terrorist incidents, but the principle is the same. And this entry is also a BLP violation. Doug Weller talk 13:00, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

suggested addition to the list.

the explosion outside a verizon building. 2600:8805:230A:9700:9913:F2B1:B001:6DFE (talk) 14:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

2021 Storming of the U.S. Capitol

There is no consensus that this is terrorism. I am removing it from this page. See Talk:Domestic terrorism in the United States and Talk:2021 storming of the United States Capitol#Characterization as domestic terrorism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdphenix (talk • contribs) 00:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

See Talk:2021_storming_of_the_United_States_Capitol#RFC: Should this event be characterized as terrorism?. Jdphenix (talk) 00:48, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Hanged. not Hung

1900-59 section of table. Line 36. The verb is hanged, not hung. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.119.143.20 (talk) 16:26, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

1864 Plum creek massacre

Given that many of the massacres of native Americans and Coloured Americans are included in this list for the 1700's - 1900's it seems very inconsistent to be leaving the Plumb creek massacre out. On the 8th of August 1864 a freight train which had just left Fort Kearney bound westward for Denver was attacked by a group of Cherokee Indians who derailed the train which caught fire, they then scalped several of the trains crew killing between 11 and 12 people. Around the 8th of August 1864 several more attacks were launched by Cherokee native Americans killing roughly 40 people including those killed in the Plumb creek massacre. In the aftermath of the attack construction of the transcontinental railroad was temporarily halted with many workers being particularly shocked by the attack, greater security measures were stepped up to defend trains from attack also.

This is a very well known massacre of the time period and very similar in nature to the other massacres in this list of terrorist attacks for the same time period so it should therefore be included in this list of terrorist attacks in the US. https://omaha.com/state-and-regional/plum-creek-a-massacre-that-started-a-war/article_e5afe5bd-08c2-5465-80a8-8c4947af43d3.html https://lexch.com/news/local/the-plum-creek-massacre-and-the-plum-creek-cemetery/article_92067f8f-1307-5824-86dd-0b9f9f4f9b63.html https://www.forttours.com/pages/plumcreekneb.asp — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2407:7000:9A0C:5A03:816F:D33E:1EDD:7253 (talk) 06:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

If you're going to refbomb, you might want to check your references first. The bandcamp page of a band called The Plum Creek Massacre probably isn't the best of references. Do any references actually call this incident terrorism? FDW777 (talk) 19:19, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah buddy that's gone now, no none of my sources directly declare the Plumb creek massacre as terrorism because back then it wouldn't have been thought of as terrorisms, the term simply wasn't used nearly as much as it is today. However in modern terms the attack meets the terrorism criteria, as it was a deliberate and well planed out attack designed to terrorize the rail road workers and physically damage the trans continental railroad in an attempt to stop it's advance across the US. With many massacres from that time period much fewer if any sources will site such attacks as terrorism and yes that includes the very recent sources as they tend to just continue with the old phraseology of the attacks.

2020 Nevada Highway Patrolman Shooting

On March 27, 2020, John Dabritz shot and killed Nevada Highway Patrol Sgt. Ben Jenkins. Authorities have since connected Dabritz to multiple shootings and at least one explosive device linked to anti-government extremism, and believe that he killed the patrolman to avoid his arrest for the other incidents. Dabritz has entered a plea of not guilty due to insanity. Should the patrolman shooting be added to the Terrorism in the United States 2020-Present table? DH1913 (talk) 17:43, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

RFC

There is no consensus to call 2021_storming_of_the_United_States_Capitol as Terrorism as per this RFC.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:17, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Interesting article

"FBI’s bizarre system of categorizing domestic terrorists continues to infect Biden’s strategy" [2]. Doug Weller talk 18:56, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Note

• There is no consensus to call 2021 storming of the United States Capitol as Terrorism as per this RFC.Hence until community consensus changes we will not add it here.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:57, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Terrorism in the United States

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Terrorism in the United States's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "VOA":

• From Democratic Party (United States): Arab-American Voters Say Iraq Top Issue in 2008 Campaign. By Mohamed Elshinnawi. Voice of America. July 23, 2007, Archived March 13, 2008, at the Wayback Machine
• From Killings of Aaron Danielson and Michael Reinoehl: Farivar, Masood (September 1, 2020). "Antifa Protester Implicated in Killing of Trump Supporter in Oregon". Voice of America. Retrieved September 23, 2020.
• From Russia: "New Reports Highlight Russia's Deep-Seated Culture of Corruption". Voice of America. 26 January 2020. Retrieved 16 March 2020.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 15:51, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Splitting proposal

I think that the section Terrorism in the United States#Attacks by date should be split into a separate page called Timeline of terrorist attacks in the United States. It would eliminate the "Article is too long" problem noted on the main page. 70.124.147.243 (talk) 21:50, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I fully support this. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 21:51, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Support. The article should focus on prose encyclopedic content. I'd also support splitting some of the other lists to their own pages as well. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:37, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I've made the move Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:23, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Right-wing terrorism

@Aubernas: Can you please explain why you removed the paragraph starting In 2018, most ideologically motivated murders ? It seems to be well sourced. Rsk6400 (talk) 04:59, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

2016 Dallas Police Shootings

The source for the claim that "no deaths were caused by left-wing groups between Sept 12, 2001 and Dec 2016" is not correct. The 2016 Dallas Police Shootings were clear, racially/politically motivated killings, by an attacker with known associations to black power and left wing extremism. I thought maybe the claim was playing some tricks by adding the modifier "groups" to the claim, but looking into the source, any killing motivated by any (lone) extremist was counted. While the source may have value in other areas, this particular claim should either be removed, or clarified for neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yamazon3 (talk • contribs) 22:13, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

@Yamazon3 but 2016 shooting of Dallas police officers#Motive doesn't ascribe a clear motive. It even says he wanted to hurt Black preachers because they were more interested in money than god. We can't use your interpretation, that would be original research. Doug Weller talk 11:15, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

That would still be terrorism if he did commit a religious shooting, but ultimately he didn't shoot preachers, he shot police officers. He was a member of left-wing political groups, and even if you don't want to accept that it's left wing, it's certainly terrorism regardless, and at best does not fit either Islamic nor right wing terrorism, which means that the claim that all fatal terrorist attacks from 11/12/01 - 12/31/16 were either right wing or Islamic still does not stand, and should be removed or clarified for neutrality. As it stands, it is misleading to readers. Yamazon3 (talk) 12:33, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

That's not the way we work. We need reliable sources, see WP:RS and WP:VERIFY. And it doesn't say that in the article. I don't see any point in carrying on this conversation. Doug Weller talk 12:49, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. I do understand your point, and you're right, I should have presented citations and not original research. Citation number 25 of this article claims that 7 deaths were attributed to far-left terrorism between 2008-2016. That source and claim is present in the first section of the body, just a few paragraphs down from the claim that I contested. What is the right thing for me to do when we have multiple sources claiming opposing and/or contradictory claims? Yamazon3 (talk) 13:37, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Looks like we need to modify the claim about 7 deaths. The source says "only two incidents of domestic terrorism in the database can plausibly be attributed to a perpetrator with such sympathies." It doesn't make an assertion that they were attributed to a perpetrator with such sympathies. 5 are the Dallas shootings we discussed, the other two the 2014 killings of NYPD officers but if you look at what it says about the perpetrator, there's no way we can call this a terrorist attack or that the perpetrator had left-wing ties, that seems to be speculation. I'll have to think about that. Doug Weller talk 14:31, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Note that the 2014 killings are not called terrorist in its article. We need to fix the claim about left-wing deaths as it doesn't match what the source says. Doug Weller talk 14:42, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

The source very clearly says that there were 7 fatalities from left wing inspired domestic terror incidents in multiple places, most easily visible in the graphs. I think the crux of the issue here is that what is an isn't terrorism is blurry. I suspect that if you apply the same scrutiny to many of the incidents that were counted, you'd run into the same problem. Regardless, I now have other sources also establishing the 2016 Dallas Police Shooting to left wing ideologies.

Given that we can't you your interpretation, or my interpretation, and that we should use the sources, should we add the 2016 Dallas Shooting to the header, or should we move the contradicting claim in the header to somewhere else in the body? Yamazon3 (talk) 15:23, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

@Yamazon3 I'm not interpreting the source when I quote it using the word "plausibly". You'll need to change the 2016 Dallas shooting article first in any case. Doug Weller talk 15:40, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

I have not edited The 2016 Dallas police shooting article because it already describes the attack as domestic terrorism, and cites double digit articles confirming his left wing influences uncovered in the investigation including comments made online and to friends/associates of Johnson, as well as his membership to a hate group known to the SPLC. and his stated goals immediately before the attack. I don't understand, what more info do you need?

Should we add the 2016 Dallas Shooting to the header, or should we move the contradicting claim in the header to somewhere else in the body? Yamazon3 (talk) 16:34, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

We should do neither. I'm going to raise the issue of the poor sources for terrorism, which I wonder if you read, in the Dallas shooting atWP:RSN. Wait. Headlines aren't sources by the way. Doug Weller talk 16:58, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

@Doug Weller, I didn't make any statement to indicate headlines as sources. Can you please be specific as to what information do you think is missing to consider Johnsons attack as act of terrorism? Yamazon3 (talk) 17:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

@Yamazon3 I know but some people think they do. Anyway you should now go to WP:RSN and respond there. Doug Weller talk 18:28, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

And I've rewritten the lead to include both reports and added the caveat in the section on totals. I think that's fixed the issue. Doug Weller talk 09:08, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Missing Jan 6th from Terrorism in the United States page

Jan 6th was, by the definition of the word, terrorism, as any coup/insurrection attempt would be against any government.

Also, there are a lot of right wing terrorist attacks missing (FBI had hundreds on a list since 9/11 alone, and thousands more by the KKK), as well as incorrectly attributed attacks, and Michael Reinoehl was an anarchist anti-fascist, not left wing at all...which to group left wing and antigovernment is silly, just like grouping right wing and anti-government. Anti-government is another dimension of the spectrum. It would be fair to pair up left wing and eco terrorism though, or if you want to miss classify protests of oil pipelines as terrorism (like the US government does, since it's a big part of US oligarch wealth generation, I guess it may be to them), that would almost all be left wing too.

Being anti-fascist doesn't make someone left wing though. Most of the recent violent antifa people are actually libertarians even. 2601:80:4400:7AD0:A4E9:C0FE:FD75:2A74 (talk) 22:29, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: English 102

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2023 and 5 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): VannaG (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Devonte04 (talk) 18:04, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Add january 6th

january 6th was a terrorist attack on the capitol building 142.54.9.83 (talk) 18:09, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:RS required EvergreenFir (talk) 18:09, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Deadliest attacks

Hello! I'm flagging this an alerting the involved editors: @Corgi Stays:, @BlueGuide7551:, @2601:642:4601:cfc0:118a:50f8:ad0:712b:.

I came here from Columbine High School massacre, where I saw two editors were going back and forth on whether to include Template:Terrorist attacks in the United States by deaths on that page. That template, a navbox, has also been subject to a back and forth on whether to include Columbine and other events (see [3][4]). The template also says it reflects information from [the deadliest attacks list on this page]. And, no surprise, I also see a back and forth on that list (diffs: [5][6]). It appears that the events in question were first added to the article this month—prior to that, they were not there. As such, I'd say that the last stable version of this article would not have included those events.

Rather than go back and forth on mainspace and template-space edits, why don't we discuss here what belongs in this list? I'll be honest, I'm not sure many sources treat Columbine as a "terrorist attack"—knowing very little about the subject, that strikes me as a potentially fringe view. But, so far, I haven't seen any sources mentioned. So, for the editors who want it and the other shootings listed, do you have reliable sources describing those events as terrorist attacks? (I'm alerting the talk pages of each article in question and the template)--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:10, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Per Definition of terrorism the various incidents mentioned above, including Bath School disaster, would seem to fit the bill, at least in the US. The article quotes the US Federal Code as stating "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents". Kehoe planned in secret, prepared in secret and then perpetrated his mass killing for political revenge etc. I'm open to the re-classification of these various articles as belonging to a general Terrorism category. Shearonink (talk) 20:09, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

So, the question is whether that's improper synthesis. (It's a hard Q; I was recently involved in a discussion over the same type of analysis.) I think we're on safer ground if we have sources describing (or not describing) the events as terrorist attacks rather than taking a definition from one source and determining for ourselves whether the event fits that bill.--Jerome Frank Disciple 20:15, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Terrorism...

• Maniac: The Bath School Disaster and the Birth of the Modern Killer... "Most Americans probably believe that domestic terrorism and school massacres are new phenomena, disturbing effects of recent social instability."
• Arnie Bernstein..."... resonates powerfully for modern readers and reminds us that domestic terrorism and mass murder are sadly not just a product of our times."
• Safe Havens International...School Terrorism Timeline and Information School Terrorism Incidents: Information and timeline of attacks - "Though these incidents share some traits with acts of school terrorism..."
• Domestic Terror – The 1927 Bath Michigan School Bombing..."The Bath, Michigan, school bombing is deemed a domestic terror incident, remains the top school massacre in United States history and is ranked 11th deadliest in the world. "

Shearonink (talk) 22:09, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

I think those—particularly the first one—are solid sources for Bath!--Jerome Frank Disciple 09:47, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Regardless of what goes on with the other articles mentioned above...unless there are meaningful objections in this particular case, I am going to reinstate the terrorist cat template to Bath School disaster. As I noted previously in this thread, there are multiple reliable sources that state the Bath School disaster was a terrorist event. Shearonink (talk) 01:47, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

IMHO, this whole section needs to go. It's a very subjective list with no authoritative definition of what qualifies. For example, 2017 Las Vegas shooting resulted in 60 dead. That is a far higher count than most entries on this list, but isn't listed. While we don't know if the motive of the attack was terrorize the public or not, the public sure was terrorized because of it. Anti government activists consider the Waco seige to be a terrorist attack, with the usual roles reversed, but others would consider the governments actions that day negligent, not deliberate. Either way, that act also isn't listed here and also had more deaths that most of the events currently listed. Also curious, Mountain Meadows Massacre is listed, yet that is not usually considered a terrorist attack. Terrorism is usually agreed as an act that may or may not target a specific group, but the larger goal is to create terror in the general public. With the Mountain Meadows Massacre there were no adult surviving witnesses, and aguably no uninvolved member of the public was terrorized, nor was the motive to terrorize the public. Also, the data listed in the table is incorrect. It says 17 injured. Seventeen is generally accepted as the number of survivors, not the number of injured. So there's two problems with this entry. IMHO unless there is a specific definition of what qualifies and an authoritative list we can cite, this list was, is, and always will be problematic, and should go. Dave (talk) 18:29, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't see how adding something means another thing can't be added. If you want to add Waco or the las vegas material you are free to do so, I don't see anyone objecting to it. It would seem time, place and context is always relative, but it's unclear how that would affect WP:DUE. Kind of like comparing apples to oranges. Something may be the "deadliest" attack at the time, but may be eclipsed in some way by past or future events according to personal perspectives. Thats why we rely on the SOURCES to tell us what is considered "deadliest" etc...Just my thoughts. DN (talk) 20:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

The definition as determined in the article is "Only incidents with ten or more deaths, excluding those of the perpetrators, are included". DN (talk) 20:50, 28 June 2023 (UTC)