Talk:Curtis Culwell Center attack

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Categorization / Crime vs. terrorism[edit]

Once the facts emerge about the attackers, it may be appropriate to remove Category:Crimes in Texas and add one or both of Category:Islamic terrorism in Texas or Category:Terrorist incidents in Texas‎. I don't want to add those unless there is a reliable source to back them up. KConWiki (talk) 12:04, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Texas Muhammad Cartoon attack[edit]

Proposing that we move this to the sort of names most newspapers are running with, names that contain "texas" , Muhammad, and cartoon; "draw Muhammad"; or some variant. These are the sorts of words people will run searches on, and that create a meaningful title. E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I support changing the name of the article, but I did just create a redirect using the verbiage you suggested. KConWiki (talk) 12:41, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think, at least for now, we should cover both the attack and the main event at Muhammad Art Exhibit and Contest, the actual name of the event per [1]. I don't really like the ad hoc Venn diagram style of naming for news events that much, so when a more definitive title presents itself, I'm all for it. If it were between the current title and the one proposed above, I'd keep the current title since it ties it to the specific location. Wnt (talk) 21:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Categorization / People shot dead...[edit]

Regarding this edit with this comment "removed Category:People shot dead by law enforcement officers in the United States This category should be used on biographies, not events. This article isn't about people but the shooting." - That's fine if that's consensus, but let me point out that Category:People shot dead by law enforcement officers in the United States has numerous listings for articles for incidents rather than individual human beings, including Orangeburg massacre, 2010 Pentagon shooting, Danziger Bridge shootings, and others. KConWiki (talk)

I am going to restore this category, based on the rationale above. Any concerns, let's discuss. KConWiki (talk) 02:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Given the similarities to other articles, it makes sense. Faceless Enemy (talk) 02:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RfD notification[edit]

2015 Garland terror attack, a redirect to this article, has been nominated for deletion. Please participate in the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 May 4#2015 Garland terror attack. --BDD (talk) 13:34, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and sorry, I should have notified this talk page myself.- MrX 18:04, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge[edit]

WITHDRAWN
Withdrawn. Looks like this isn't going anywhere for now, especially since the merge tag has been edit-warred off the article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:10, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This news event is unlikely to gain lasting notability. I suggest that we follow the example of Family_Research_Council#Shooting_incident and keep this non-notable shooting at a hate group in the group's own article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:40, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Geert Wilders is an internationally controversial figure, and this has international implications - the tweets by one of the gunmen directing people to follow the twitter account of a British ISIL member means it has international implications. -- Aronzak (talk) 15:04, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Way too early. Let's evaluate in a month. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 15:06, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This event is linked as "Curtis Culwell Center attack" currently by google news. Let's just leave it without an annoying tag until some dust settles. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 15:24, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Aronzak and Biosthmors. Plot Spoiler (talk) 15:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Way too early per Biosthmors. Libertarian12111971 (talk) 15:46, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose No rush here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:15, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now, as it is too early to tell its notability. Epic Genius (talk) 18:15, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Assuming that this becomes an annual event, the article should continue as already listed as it will naturally format properly over the years. The attack(s) will just be part of the article itself. --ThoHug (talk) 18:16, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can this be closed for now while people are searching for the article? Five editors in agreement not to merge. Propose again in a week if coverage is low. -- Aronzak (talk) 16:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Agree that it's too early for the same reasons others have expressed. It also sounds pretty biased and far from a neutral POV to suggest this is a "shooting at a hate group". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grifterlake (talk • contribs) 20:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, i.e. expand focus, i.e. move, to Muhammad Art Exhibit and Contest, the name of the planned annual event (per [2]). At least this year's presentation will rarely be mentioned separately from the attacks, so it makes sense to cover both as one entity. The parent entity has to be covered (and indeed we're doing so already in this article) because it's useless to describe an attack on something without saying what was attacked. I call this a "merge" because, assuming there are many annual events, there may eventually be a need to re-split that part of the article, perhaps to the name presently being used, but at this time it doesn't make sense to do so. Wnt (talk) 21:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, too early. GregJackP Boomer! 21:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose: This has made international headlines. Faceless Enemy (talk) 02:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Undue Weight to SPLC bias[edit]

My understanding of the process here is that one does not need an account to participate.

On this understanding, I propose removing the SPLCs agenda-driven characterization of this group on the basis it is being given undue weight. Above - 98.175.150.175 (talk · contribs)

No, the SPLC is a legitimate organization and it is a fact that this group is a hate group. I don't understand how it's any bias when this group does a lot of things hate groups tend to do. Sorry but it's fact. Benbuff91 4 May 2015, 14:48 (UTC)

Sorry, BenBuff91, that's not how wikipedia works. The 'fact' doesn't justify the 'statement'. Rather, WP is built from citations. To say that SPLC is a hate group, you'll want to find reputable sources that maintain that it is a hate group. Even then, unless the view of its status is broadly universal, you'll have to report that "So-and-so says SPLC is a hate group." I don't know whether I think SPLC is a hate group, but regardless of whether or not it is, to include that statement you'll have to cite it from a reputable source. GeePawHill (talk) 19:23, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstood my statement. I didn't mean the SPLC is a hate group (it isn't), I meant that the group AFDI that was running the convention was a hate group, which it is. I worded my comment badly. I didn't put it in here because of a liberal bias, I put it in there to give more information on the group. If you want my personal opinion, I feel both the perps and the hate group are equally awful. So I really have no need to push any bias. I agree that AFDI is a hategroup. They certainly picket very similarly to WBC. When Muslims had a convention here earlier this year they were certainly very hateful in their protests. It's a group that obviously hates Islam, while also trying to hide behid some "freedom of speech" mask that I don't understand how anyone can buy. If you want to say that the SPLC is biased, I feel the best way is to include Geller's own statement that she doesn't agree that the AFDI is a hate group. Benbuff91 4 May 2015 20:51 (UTC)
@Benbuff91: "If you want my personal opinion, I feel both the perps and the hate group are equally awful." -- Really. I guess everyone at the center wasting their time drawing pictures of the prophet was carrying automatic weapons and planned to slaughter as many Muslims as they could find later. What offensive, politically correct Garry Trudeau-esque stupidity. Quis separabit? 14:36, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Our own article on the SPLC says their "hate list" is controversial. There is no reason not to include this brief description from a well-edited lost-standing article so that the reader realizes there is controversy involved in such categorizations. Your POV or mine are irrelevant. Benbuff91, let's put back the word controversial so that the reader realizes there are two sides to the story reflected in the vast number of sources on both the AFDI and SPLC. Jason from nyc (talk) 02:00, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - In one interview (that was later cut out) Geller stated that she objected to the SPLC listing because no jihadist organisations are listed on their site. I would favour including counterbalancing information.
It is worth noting that Pam Geller, Robert Spencer and Geert Wilders are strongly right-wing and anti-immigrant, and significantly to the right of people like Lars Vilks, Flemming Rose, Salman Rushdie, Charlie Hebdo, Inna Shevchenko, Molly Norris etc.
So what?? Right wing and left wing are both legitimate political positions, unlike say a pro-jihad or pro-terrorist per se political affiliation. Quis separabit? 14:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sidenote, Molly Norris doesn't believe in everybody draw muhammad, possibly because she doesn't like the controversy being capitalised on by right-wing, anti-immigrant groups. -- Aronzak (talk) 19:34, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While Geert Wilders speaks regularly about immigration, to my knowledge Pamela Geller rarely, if ever does so. She has stated that what she is fighting for is free speech, and what she is fighting against is jihad and sharia, which is the reason for her being labeled Islamaphobic and her organization labeled a hate group. Aslo, to GeePawHill I would add that I believe BenBuff91 is saying that he believes ADFI is a hate group, not the SPLC, though I would disagree with his characterization that ADFI is a hate group, as well as SPLC being a "trusted source". They label other groups as hate groups based sincerely held beliefs, and not actions or positions they advocate. grifterlake (talk) 20:34, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See [3] "Muslim immigration into Western countries must be stopped" - I think it's fair to characterise this as "anti-immigration" and RS and NPOV sources I'm sure will. Notably, Lars Vilks, Flemming Rose, Salman Rushdie, Charlie Hebdo, Inna Shevchenko, Molly Norris - etc have not expressed sentiments like this. -- Aronzak (talk) 13:54, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
""Muslim immigration into Western countries must be stopped" ... I think it's fair to characterise this as "anti-immigration" -- well, no, it isn't -- it is an opposition to migration from certain places (i.e. Muslim countries), not a blanket anti-immigrant position. No one is talking about immigrants from New Zealand or Serbia or Finland. Quis separabit? 14:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. I agree with BenBuff91's statement. The AFDI hate group status is relevant to the story. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 20:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per Wnt, Quis, Jason, and Grifter.--v/r - TP 04:21, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose removing that statement. The Southern Poverty Law Center, a trusted source, is simply documenting Geller, Spencer, and Wilder's conservative bias. Epic Genius (talk) 20:18, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The SPLC is not a neutral source of information. It's an activist organization with a political agenda that offers partisan interpretations. And again, there is also the matter of its perspective is being given undue weight in this article. If you veteran editors are determined to keep the information, you ought to add the organization's response to it and indicate the organization contests the SPLCs characterization, assuming that's true.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.175.150.175 (talk) 19:19, 4 May 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]
    It may not be neutral, but its information is more trustful and more impartial than, let's say, some other, interested parties. Epic Genius (talk) 03:21, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    While I don't necessarily disagree with your statement, it can also be said with equal accuracy that the information coming from the SPLC is less trustful, and less impartial than "some other interested parties". You're not making a case that they are an accurate and trusted source of information, only that they are more accurate and trusted than some other sources. If those other sources are Hamas or ISIS it does nothing to point to the SPLC as an information source in which we can be confident. grifterlake (talk) 03:47, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I agree with Aronzak's statement below. Since the quote from the SPLC was cited in the reliable news outlets of Reuters and Associated Press, and it is correctly attributed, the analysis itself must be reliable. (!!) Epic Genius (talk) 15:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As Jimbo used to say "we are not transcription monkeys." We don't just cut and paste. We have a whole article on SPLC that notes they are controversial. They have been criticized by people across the political spectrum. We should do more than just regurgitate the news media, which is inherently terse. While the SPLC's work on white supremacists is unquestioned, putting others in such an extreme category has been questioned. Hate implies more than just disagreement. It insinuates malice and a desire to harm. Critics have accused the SPLC with painting with too broad a brush. We should mention that their lists are controversial and convey what our research has found in the well-edited SPLC article. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:14, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The SPLC is not a neutral source of information. It may once have performed a useful service -- now it is a partisan, politically correct, patronage and power-hungry, money grabbing institution. Quis separabit? 20:00, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV lets statements of opinion be attributed to a particular source. In this instance, it's appropriate for Wikipedia to include a line attributing a statement to the SPLC, when that line has appeared in Reuters and the Associated Press (which are considered reliable sources). This is the quote

    "Who designated the SPLC as a legitimate authority? They are a radical leftist group who targets patriots, vets and even GOP presidential candidates," she told CNN. "They have never named a jihadi group as a hate group."

    -- Aronzak (talk) 14:04, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Who designated the SPLC as a legitimate authority? They are a radical leftist group who targets patriots, vets and even GOP presidential candidates" is perfectly acceptable rhetoric, and, in my opinion, accurate. Quis separabit? 14:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest including the fact that the SPLC "hate" lists (outside the area of white supremacists) are considered controversial. This is in the very lead paragraph of the SPLC article and that information should be given here. Jason from nyc (talk) 00:19, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good point. If people want to say that the ADFI is a hate group based on their labeling as such by the SPLC, then the integrity of the SPLC and their motives should be subject to equal scrutiny and labeled on that basis. grifterlake (talk) 01:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. As the word controversial is in each of the three leading paragraphs of the SPLC article, I'm going to add it to our article to clarify the source of the statement. Jason from nyc (talk) 10:56, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Althought the SPLC does appear to have a political agenda and bias which influences who they place on their "list", apparently a number of law enforcement agencies do use their list to help them track hate groups. I think having one sentence in the article saying that this group is on the SPLC's list is fine. Cla68 (talk) 05:20, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. SPLC is a far-left Judeophobic hate group whose racist opinion should not be given weight in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.205.185.103 (talk) 05:21, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Per Epic Genius. I don't really there are any credible positions against the neutrality of the SPLC. If you want to know what a "hate group" is in America, the SPLC is pretty much the only recognized entity that applies this label. NickCT (talk) 15:00, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The SPLC should not be presented as a neutral authority speaking incontrovertible truth - they didn't always list anti-Islamic groups themselves, after all. But there is material at the AFDI main article that can be summarized about the British government and their conflicts with various public transit ad executives, which can sort of illuminate a general position that is popular. FWIW (probably nothing) I'll add my feeling is that being against Islam as a religion should not be counted as "hate" any more than being against Christianity, and some appear to blur this distinction with the underlying implication that Muslims can't choose to change religion; nonetheless, reading the last SIOA posting on that site (which is different from AFDI's) it was a call in 2013 to ban foreign funding of mosques, which is an openly discriminatory proposal; so my own feeling is that they are not at all like Nazis calling for concentration camps, yet the degree of discrimination they call for is easily sufficient to get white separatist groups labelled as "hate groups" anyway. Bottom line - the phrase is pretty inflammatory and not all that clear, so we should be careful how we put this, but it is sourced. Wnt (talk) 19:56, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said in my edit summary, there's no reason to include this deliberately well-poisoning "controversial". The SPLC is not in fact especially controversial (its list has been the target of a little bit of criticism), and its listing of SIOA in particular appears to have generated no controversy at all, contrary to what seems to be the implication here. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually @Roscelese: you wanted to delete this article (see above closed discussion) as a non-notable shooting at a "hate group" (referring to the AFDI) "in the group's own article". I think your neutrality needs to be called into question. Quis separabit? 20:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Quis has a point. Epeefleche (talk) 21:35, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No interest in actually discussing the issue? None? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:37, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Roscelese, I'd be shocked to ever see you critical of an organization that was left - and I'd be equally shocked to see you supportive of one on the right. As Grifter notes below and Cla68 notes above, the SPLC is indeed controversial. I'm concerned that not only are you defending this position, but you're doing it with quite a bit of impunity. Care to support your statement that the SPLC is not considered to be controversial? Grifter's comment about the FBI is very convincing.--v/r - TP 04:21, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Grifter's claim that the removal of the link was related to the shooting is entirely unverifiable, and C-FAM is not mainstream. I wonder whose talking points Grifter is regurgitating here? As I said - the SPLC's list is the only one of its activities that has generated any controversy at all, and that's a few commentators here and there, not any kind of broad recognition in sources (the way reliable sources reporting on this incident are frequently going "by the way, SIOA has been designated as a hate group"). Additionally, even if we accepted the dubious claim that the list was so controversial that any mention of it had to be tagged, including it here falsely suggests that SIOA's inclusion generated controversy, when the controversy has had more to do with homophobic groups and racist anti-immigrant groups. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:44, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa! Don't put the cart before the horse here. I said I believed the removal followed the shooting, not that the shooting precipitated it though I do believe it is probably related. My point was that the FBI removed the SPLC link because their list is controversial, which is the point people are making here. In regards to C-FAM, they are an organization in good standing with the Catholic Church and were given "Special Consultative Status without objection" by the UN. I'd say that their good standing with the Catholic Church makes them mainstream with Catholicism, and their status with the UN puts them in the mainstream as an organization. You've made a clear and blunt assertion they are not a mainstream organization. Please support that statement. grifterlake (talk) 17:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Roscelese: "C-FAM is not mainstream. I wonder whose talking points Grifter is regurgitating here?" -- You must know that personal opinions and Harry Reid-esque attempts at character assassination do not make valid arguments on Wikipedia. So why do you engage in that kind of behavior?? Quis separabit? 17:33, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It should also be noted that a year or two ago (I believe after the FRC shooting incident) the FBI removed the SPLC link from it's list of resources in the hate group section of their website, and that the SPLC list itself includes a mainstream Catholic organization (C-FAM) that is an NGO at the UN. It's hardly "well-poisoning" to add the word "controversial" in this article given the above, and the fact that the target of that listing--Pamela Geller has disputed the basis for being labeled as a hate group and has never advocated any untoward action that could be considered hate toward anyone. Like the SPLC, Geller and her organization are controversial, but that does not equate with hate. The very fact that there is this much discussion about it in public discourse and on this talk page is de facto evidence that the hate group listing of AFDI is indeed, controversial. grifterlake (talk) 21:38, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment:. I see plenty of personal opinion in this discussion but not a single source is presented for the "controversial" claim. W/o sourcing that shows the SPLC is widely seen as controversial it's meaningless OR (for wiki purposes that is). I removed the claim as unsourced and ask editors to provide sources before concluding any consensus for or against the (controversial) "controversial" claim.--TMCk (talk) 14:37, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User:The Magnificent Clean-keeper, no NPOV source has been presented for the "controversial" claim. SPLC tracks all hate groups in the USA, including Islamic ones, such as the Nation of Islam. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 16:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think your example further proves our point. Since when is the Nation of Islam a hate group? The whole Mother Wheel thing is bizarre and they seem like an off the wall outfit, but your mention of them as a hate group and being on the SPLC list is the first I've heard, and makes it all the more evident that the SPLC throws the term around loosely in regards to their list. grifterlake (talk) 16:33, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Since when is the Nation of Islam a hate group?" --- are you for real? You need to do some research, dude. Quis separabit? 17:27, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that they are a fringe group, and at times militant, but I am very leery of labeling religious groups as hate groups based on their sincerely held religious beliefs. Their rhetoric in regards to Christians and Jews differs little from that one hears from Muslims around the world, or what was heard from Christians 1000 - 1500 years ago and probably from Jews 2000 years ago. To get a hate group designation I would want to see actions and behavior to be included in that group. grifterlake (talk) 17:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But you are not the authority on hate groups here, that's SPLC. Let's end this tangent. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:49, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've never claimed to be an authority on hate groups, nor have I engaged in original research. I'm merely disputing your assertion that a) the SPLC hate group list is not controversial, and b) your statement immediately above that the SPLC *is* an authority on hate groups. They are a group with an agenda, like many others. The Heritage Foundation is a "trustworthy and reliable source". But if they put out a list that asserted that the ACLU is an anti-American group I would support noting that listing is controversial. I'm also cool with ending this "tangent", as you call it but it is really anything but. It's central to how the AFDI is perceived relative to the attack on their event. And it is you that has argued by assertion, not me. I've supported my contention that the SPLC hate group list is controversial several times in this discussion. You have neither refuted it, or provided evidence to support the assertions you have made, from C-FAM not being a mainstream organization to the SPLC hate group list not being controversial and everywhere in between and beyond. grifterlake (talk) 02:59, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your "support" for your contention is your own personal belief that the Nation of Islam isn't a hate group and that you personally dislike labeling religious groups as hate groups. Mine is pointing out the absence of sources attesting to any controversy about labeling SIOA in particular and to the fact that sources mentinoing the SPLC don't usually identify it as controversial, in contrast to sources on the SIOA which frequently point out that it's a hate group. Are you trying to argue that in order to remove "controversial", it's necessary to find sources that say "not controversial", rather than just pointing out that the sources do not support "controversial"? I think your misunderstanding of policy is not helping you here. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:52, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The group is being tracked as a hate group by the SPLC. See [4] which is filed under Extremist Files. And there is a long list of articles/information when searching their page for "Nation of Islam".--TMCk (talk) 17:06, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Big deal. The NOI is a hate group, albeit thuggish, inarticulate and ludicrous. When one of their high-ranking leaders died (I think it was Khalid Muhammad, but I'll check), his funeral was in a Baptist church! They are as ignorant of Islam as Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi are of the U.S. Constitution. The SPLC is a politically leftist group with more than million in its tax-free endowment, pretending to be non-partisan, and is no longer relied upon by the FBI, even under this administration, which says a lot. Quis separabit? 17:27, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Filling a soapbox is not helping the article. You know better so please adhere to the talk page rules.--TMCk (talk) 17:40, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are absolutely no talk page rules being broken here. If you know of any, then walk the talk and show them.--107.18.192.60 (talk) 22:40, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note, the SPLC also has a "Muslim extremism" tag on their hatewatch blog. The Nation of Islam is listed as "black supremacist" or "black separatist" -- Aronzak (talk) 17:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the Anti-Defamation League has a similar view on SIOA filed under "CIVIL RIGHTS: DISCRIMINATION" (full report is linked on site as PDF).--TMCk (talk) 17:32, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Good point. Grifter makes a convincing point. As he points out, if editors wish to say that the ADFI is a hate group "based on their labeling as such by the SPLC, then the integrity of the SPLC and their motives should be subject to equal scrutiny and labeled on that basis." Epeefleche (talk) 23:20, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV[edit]

I just wanted to say that I did some editing on another article regarding this shooting (they've since been merged) and I'm glad there have been editors here who have worked to maintain a neutral point of view and stick to the facts as released by the authorities and media. Early this morning, there was a lot of OR and speculation on the plans, identity and motivation of the shooters before their identities had been released. The tone didn't reflect NPOV or the best of Wikipedia and I'm glad that this article, although it is sparse right now, will become more complete as the investigation continues into this incident. Editors here are not reporters or opinion editors and making assumptions will just cause your edits to be reverted. Liz Read! Talk! 21:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Saw very, very little of that at all . . . when another editor's views differ from yours, that doesn't make it a POV issue, per se. I've noticed editors with left-wing leanings doing several knee-jerks on articles of this nature - you'll just have to live with the fact that in the U.S., the vast majority of people are "center-right," and this will be reflected in the RS that they choose to cite. HammerFilmFan (talk) 21:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I saw a LOT of it early Monday morning. I don't know if it was right or left leaning, it seemed more like people wanting to be on top of a news story and filling in gaps of information with explanations that could not be reliably sourced at that moment because there was so little actual information available. Liz Read! Talk! 22:53, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Type of weapon used[edit]

I reverted an IP edit that changed "assault rifle" to "assault weapon" at three places in the article. While assault weapon may be more accurate (not really, they were semi-automatic rifles and should be described as such), all of the sources that mention it in this article use the term "assault rifle." We use what the sources use. Verifiability, not truth. GregJackP Boomer! 15:20, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The IP edit was correct. They were not assault rifles, but assault weapons. Assault rifles have a very specific definition. Assault weapons are determined by lawmakers. Just because media outlets confuse the terms does not mean wikipedia should. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.129.196.120 (talk) 16:50, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Did you not read my statement? Assault weapon is better than assault rifle, but neither is really correct. They are semi-automatic rifles, no different operationally than a Remington Model 750 or a Benelli Argo EL. None of that matters though, as Wikipedia policy constrains us to use the description used in the source citation. They say "assault rifle," so that is what we use. Verifiability, not truth. GregJackP Boomer! 19:32, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But we don't have to blindly follow sources if it is preventing improvement and can apply wp:IAR at our discretion if there is consensus. I would link "assault rifle" (wrong term) to assault weapon (correct term) or no link at all until some source (could be an official police report) clarifies it.--TMCk (talk) 20:06, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. We go with what the sources say. Under no circumstances is linking assault rifles to assault weapons appropriate, when both have wiki articles. GregJackP Boomer! 20:32, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally you want specific information on the weapons; then you can say "described in media reports as assault rifles", and if you really have reason to be snarky about it, you can continue "(see assault weapon)". Wnt (talk) 20:29, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If that's the tribal consensus so be it.--TMCk (talk) 22:35, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a reason we can not just use semi-automatic rifles if that was the weapon used? Liz Read! Talk! 22:51, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to agree, semi-automatic rifle is the most descriptive and accurate term to use in this situation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.140.113.85 (talk) 23:23, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely agree; "assault weapon" is far too broad (as it encompasses rifles, pistols, and shotguns), and "assault rifle" is incorrect unless the firearms in question were full-auto. Semi-automatic rifle is best for now, until more specific about the case come to light (it would obviously be best to specify exactly which models of firearm were used). Faceless Enemy (talk) 00:19, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Q: Why don't we just say that they used tomahawks?
A: Because that's not what the source said.
Nor do we have a source that said that it was a semi-auto rife and that the media is using the wrong language. I agree that if we can get a source that says exactly what firearm was used, that would be best, but until then we need to go with what the sources report, even if it is not entirely accurate. GregJackP Boomer! 01:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So because the sources are wrong we have to be wrong too? Is that policy? I know the reverse is true (WP:PROVEIT), but knowingly putting incorrect information up there seems wrong to me. Faceless Enemy (talk) 04:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The requirement for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. GregJackP Boomer! 04:18, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So we have to use something that's verifiably wrong just because somebody else did? That's not what Wikipedia policy says. Since we know the rifles were semi-auto, we can just cite a source specifically saying so. Here's one. Breitbart isn't exactly the best source in the world, but they did interview and quote a witness to the attack specifically describing a "semi-automatic weapon" being what was used. 207.98.198.84 (talk) 16:54, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, most of the cited sources do not in fact seem to mention the phrase "assault rifle". 207.98.198.84 (talk) 20:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Depictions of Mohammed and blasphemy[edit]

I have included information which mirrors the Charlie Hebdo shooting wikiarticle regarding Islam and blasphemy as background since ISIS has claimed it as a justification: "two soldiers of the Caliphate executed an attack on an art exhibit in Garland, Texas.... This exhibit was portraying negative pictures of the Prophet Mohammed" There is also a fatwa from one of the most prominent Salafi scholars as to why Muslims must protect the Prophet Mohammed from blasphemy. I think this is clearly relevant (and we are also linking the article to the Charlie Hebdo and Copenhagen incidents). Perhaps this should go under the section "Muhammad exhibit and contest"?Patapsco913 (talk) 20:23, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Charlie Hebdo article includes discussion of French laws, perhaps there can be a sourced discussion on how the First Amendment applies to this kind of speech (No WP:SYNTH - source that applies to this event). Main issue for Roscelese is SYNTH. -- Aronzak (talk) 20:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SYNTH applies to France being likened to the US. Would be good to get an academic source, CNN talks about the issue but oversimplifies. -- Aronzak (talk) 21:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ISIL takes credit for a lot of things that it had no involvement in. I hope the shooters left some sort of indication of their motivation and whether they were connected to any groups or were acting on their own. Liz Read! Talk! 22:49, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as was the case in Charlie Hebdo, they did. Plus, as widely reported by the media, this is the very first time that IS has claimed responsibility for an attack on US soil. Epeefleche (talk) 23:12, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Extent of IS involvement[edit]

I urge Wikipedians to avoid labeling this as an IS operation. This is nothing more than a 'lone' wolf attack in which the assistants have taken inspiration from IS. Just becuase the assailants pledged allegiance to IS and its leader does not make the act having been perpetrated by the group. Already, questions are arising as to how much involvement IS really had in the attack [5]. The Charlie Hebdo shooting was an exception. The two assailants who stated that it was an al-Qaeda operation, had a history of travelling to Yemen and training with the al-Qaeda affiliate there, AQAP. One of them even met a senior AQAP leader, Anwar al-Awlaki [6],[7]. Just becuase IS claim to have been responsible, this does not make them so. Letters which were obtained by the Daily Mail revealed IS commanding its Media office to claim credit for the Charlie Hebdo shooting [8], even though the involvement between IS and the two assailants behind the attack was absolutely minimal (One of them had relations with a member of IS predecessor group Al-Qaeda in Iraq) to non-existent. IS has an agenda and something to gain from attaching its name to events/attacks which it perceives as being beneficial to its 'brand'. Those letters show how desperate they are to make there name just as synonymous as 'al-Qaeda' when it comes to planning and executing terrorist attacks in the west. Other attacks of 'lone' wolf terrorism: Porte de Vincennes siege, 2014 Sydney hostage crisis, 2014 Ottawa shootings, Jewish Museum of Belgium shooting, 2015 Copenhagen shootings. Many of the perpetrators in these attacks made statements swearing allegiance to IS, without ever training, fighting receiving support from them or meeting any of there leaders or members even. All they did was hang a black jihadist flag behind them in an amateurishly recorded video and swear an oath to a leader they know nothing about. This does not make any of these attacks as being orchestrated and planned by IS, unlike for example the September 11 attacks which was sanctioned by al-Qaeda leaders and then planned and executed by al-Qaeda operatives. StanTheMan87 (talk) 02:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just follow the RSs. When I read as far as your second sentence -- "This is nothing more than a 'lone' wolf attack" -- I realized that you're simply asserting as fact OR, which is not supported by the authorities, who are in the process of determining the facts. Furthermore, if it is determined that the two followed the IS's exhortation that those who pledge allegiance to it commit attacks in the US, it is a different animal of course than a true "lone wolf" attack. Just follow the RSs, and we will stay out of trouble, and be able to avoid POV and OR creeping in. Tx. Epeefleche (talk) 09:44, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sniper?[edit]

   I've made sequential the description of the opening events, since the perps did not shoot the (off-duty) cop after they themselves had been killed.
   My recollection is that the first report was that the wounded cop had accounted for both fatalities, and the next variation was that one or more other on-duty cops, there also to provide security, had dropped the perps, i presumed without making themselves visible to the press and public. Unless it is i who is confused, the sources need to be especially carefully checked for their times of transmission, and earlier accounts that are contradicted by later reports (at least those from the same source!) dismissed. (On-line articles should by now be accompanied by on-line retractions acknowleding previous error.) And the separate matter, of whether the wounded cop got off any shots before or after being hit, should be made clear.
   There also should be care taken to accurately describe the wounded cop (IMO apparently employed by a school, off-duty from there, and moonlighting for a private security firm); it should be made clear whether (1) he/she is a sworn officer at all, (2) whether hired to act as a cop or just an armed guard, and (3) whether legally acting with police powers or not -- which (4) may or not be identical with the question of whether any oath taken as a condition of the school job put their behavior on behalf of the other employer under the force of that oath.
   SWAT-team members are, i believe, normally municipal cops, so readers deserve info on whether whoever dropped the perps was/were deployed with Special Weapon(s) (so-called sniper weapons) and employed [Special] Tactics (perhaps in this case camo and carefully pre-planned overlooking sniper nest(s)).
--Jerzy•t 07:52, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The person who was shot was an unarmed security guard, not a police officer. He was not a sworn peace officer, and was working in connection with his Garland Independent School District employment, so he could not act with police powers as he had none. He also was not working for a private firm—even had he been a peace officer, he would not be working for a private firm as they have an exemption from that requirement. A peace officer in Texas holds police power both on- and off-duty, so there is no acting as a cop or an armed guard, they are always a cop. GregJackP Boomer! 13:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The security guy shot in the ankle was not armed according to reports. And why he was even there (absurdly) as he was not equipped to do anything remains unclear. I agree that for the still unidentified officer (likely for his safety) with only a handgun to be take out two men armed with assault weapons (head shots??) is amazing, and he may well be a sniper. God Bless. Quis separabit? 13:32, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Garland ISD does not have its own police force, preferring to use unarmed security. The security officer was there because the event was being held in a building owned by the school district. The district uses city police officers when they need an armed presence or arrest powers, but that was not the district's call in this case and the event sponsors had hired off-duty police officers to work the event. Finally, headshots are not as difficult as you would think (if they were, in fact headshots), and there is nothing to indicate that the officer was anything but a regular police officer. GregJackP Boomer! 23:12, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Amirul Mu'mineen" rather than "Amir -ul Mu'mineen"?[edit]

   It seems clear that "Amirul Mu'mineen" should be analyzed the same as "Amir al-Mu'minin". (BTW, Admiral is derived from emir ("commander") followed by al ("the", or "of the")).
   But IMO, [[Emir|Amirul]] [[Amir al-Mu'minin|Mu'mineen]] (rendering as

"Amirul Mu'mineen") works pretty well, while

[[Emir|Amir]]-[[Amir al-Mu'minin|ul Mu'mineen]] (rendering as

"Amir-ul Mu'mineen") confusingly misrepresents the ISIS message and

[[Emir|Amirul]][[Amir al-Mu'minin|Mu'mineen]] (rendering, with two links that look like one, as

"Amirul Mu'mineen") would confuse the hell out of non-Arabic-speakers, and maybe even out of Arabic-speakers.
--Jerzy•t 09:05, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I defer to you (and others who have an informed view) on this. Epeefleche (talk) 09:52, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Third suspect named and being hunted[edit]

While it might be too early to add this information to the article I thought I'd toss it out here for possible discussion. A third suspect has been named in connection with the attack, and putting a name to him shows some level of confidence on their part:

http://www.wbap.com/2015/05/06/third-suspect-sought-in-garland-attack/
"The FBI continues to search for another man thought to be connected to the weekend attack at a Garland anti-islam convention. His name is Mohammad Hasan. He grew up in Minnesota, but traveled to Africa about 15 years ago to link up with terror groups. He also goes by the name of “Miskie” on-line."

For those concerned about linking to ISIS too quickly, this is a possible nexus between the shooters and the group. grifterlake (talk) 16:27, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Soofi wrote a note on Facebook four years prior to the attack"[edit]

Should that even be on this article? The mention that one of the perpetrators "asked Allah for forgiveness" in some Facebook note FOUR YEARS before the attack? That's probably the most irrelevant piece of information in the article, I think it should be removed. Cancerbero 8 (talk) 20:45, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since no one seems to be against this, I will remove it from the article unless someone can actually give us a reason to keep this random piece of trivia there. Cancerbero 8 (talk) 22:37, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Communications with Abu Hussain al-Britani[edit]

I'm too busy to do it myself at the moment. But the article could benefit from inclusion of the communications between Junaid Hussain/Abu Hussain al-Britani (who may now warrant a wp article of his own) and Mohammed Abdulhali Hassan, on the one hand, and Simpson. See, e.g., here (among other things, 1) Hussain several hours before the attack tweeted, "soon we will come to your streets with death and slaughter!"; and 2) A week before the attack, Simpson mentioned the contest in a tweet to the account that's believed to be Mohammed Abdulhali Hassan's and asked, "When will they ever learn?", and Hassan responded: "The brothers from the Charlie Hebdo attack did their part. It's time for brothers in the #US to do their part.") --Epeefleche (talk) 22:14, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I could take care of it. Libertarian12111971 (talk) 21:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --Epeefleche (talk) 18:02, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia becomes Hate-o-pedia[edit]

This article read more like a outlet for hate speech than an encyclopedia article. If you are going to include quotes of long rants from the leaders of hate groups, you should at least be including some views of non-hate groups as well to get some balance. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 14:09, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • You're going to have to be specific. Drmies (talk) 14:16, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, this is in reference to this edit? I think you're getting carried away by this pro-con strategy of argument, so popular in American high schools. We have a watchdog organization commenting on another organization, and the spokesperson of that other organization responding. What do you want--the NCAA to comment? What you could argue is that it is excessive information which does not directly pertain to the topic of the article, even though the shooting prompted CNN to do the story; plus, the group has a page on Wikipedia, so this much information isn't relevant. I think that would be a lot more effective than some yelling and a buzzword ("Hate-o-pedia"--real clever). Just saying. Drmies (talk) 14:20, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You always have very lengthy comments about the bad-faith you see in other editors, but you never seem to comment on article content. Do you really think the Geller tirade belongs in the AFDI Section? Gouncbeatduke (talk) 14:03, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AFDI Section[edit]

Removed Geller's quote on SPLC again. The section is about describing AFDI/SIOA, not SPLC. I am not fond of including the SPLC description, but IT IS quoted in many, many journalistic sources. This section could reasonably have Geller's own description of HER group, but not her description of SPLC. Supporters of AFDI should find journalistic descriptions of AFDI from reputable journalistic sources. Dlawbailey (talk) 00:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policy (i.e. WP:BLP) asks that special care be taken when talking about living people. "... the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages ..." We should at least allow the person under attack (both verbally and literally) space to respond especially if reliable sources have. Jason from nyc (talk) 00:21, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The statement in the AFDI Section is "The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) lists AFDI as an 'anti-Muslim hate group'." It is a statement about AFDI, not Geller, and WP:BLP does not apply. If you want to offer something in Geller's defense, it should go in the "Criticism of Geller" section. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 13:59, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's obviously about Geller and Spencer. Here's the money quote from SPLC, [9] "Geller and Spencer were able to build SIOA into a propaganda powerhouse that the Southern Poverty Law Center listed as an anti-Muslim hate group in 2010." In all the reports on AFDI/SIOA there is rarely a mention of any other people besides Geller and Spencer. This is a thinly veiled attack on Geller that deserves to be matched with her rebuttal. BLP states in the 1st sentence: "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page." Particular care would imply that any slanderous remark or innuendo should be repeated, even in a quote, with utmost caution. At the bare minimum one would allow a rebuttal by the targeted person. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:41, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jason, you can't really go "Geller and Spencer being banned from the UK because of their hate speech is about them, not about SIOA" and then turn around and go "SIOA is just Geller and Spencer, so we can't say anything bad about it." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:35, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Jason. They're being discussed together. Epeefleche (talk) 18:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Depictions of Muhammad and blasphemy" section[edit]

Is it really necessary for such information to have its own section, nevertheless one in the "Reactions and aftermath" section? I think the content would fit the "Muhammad exhibit and contest" section better. Libertarian12111971 (talk) 18:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. You should give it a try and see if it stands. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 14:48, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On the one-hand, I might agree and see your point, but I'm not sure we do a service by adding a long deep-background section on material that borders on synth -- it is not specific to this attack, but deep background -- cluttering up the early part of the article. If it were to appear after the attack/participants (or perhaps be severely trimmed), that would be better. Readers who come to the article presumably are more interested in the attack. We don't want to bury that. Epeefleche (talk) 18:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What do you suggest we do with that section, then? I don't see why it needs to be in the "Reactions" section. It's a fact that's been known for a long time, and all Muslims take it seriously. I suggest redirecting the information to a more appropriate sub-section, or otherwise just delete it. Libertarian12111971 (talk) 23:38, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it being part of the Reactions section doesn't make sense, either. Open to suggestions that address both concerns. Epeefleche (talk) 04:57, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I no longer find such information necessary. At this point, it's already a known fact about Islam (especially after the shooting at Charlie Hebdo), and besides, like you said, we should avoid beefing up the "Background" section with facts. I suggest just removing the information altogether now, since no other consensus has been reached. Libertarian12111971 (talk) 21:19, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Should not the article state why they made the attack? The Salafi have long called for killing those who draw pictures of Mohammed and the attackers seem to have been inspired by Salafi leaders. I would not say that the this is common knowledge. At a minimum the background section needs to include links to Depictions of Muhammad and Islam and blasphemy. Patapsco913 (talk) 21:50, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Be my guest. I just want that particular sub-section out of the "Reactions" section because of coherency. Libertarian12111971 (talk) 00:22, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of criticism and support for Geller sections[edit]

Two editors have deleted this information from the article with the claim that it is "opinionated, not suitable" in the edit summary. Yet, the opinions of Gérard Biard (editor of Charlie Hebdo) and the Southern Poverty Law Center remain in the reactions section. While Charlie Hebdo endured a similar attack (in nature) to this one, Gérard Biard has nothing to do with this incident. Whether people agree or disagree with the mission of the SPLC, is it a good idea to have it as the only voice outside the government, the school board, the UN and Islamic officials that remains in the article? That doesn't seem to be in line with WP:NPOV. I don't think the opinionated matter was particularly harmful to the article, but I wouldn't argue to put it back. However, the SPLC statement that it plans to discuss the incident in its 2016 report on hate in the United States should be deleted, particularly since it states earlier in the article that the SPLC regards the AFDI as an anti-Muslim hate group. And, by the way, is that statement useful? Does it imply that no one else regards the AFDI as a hate group? Or does it imply that the SPLC is the only authority capable of making such a determination? Taxman1913 (talk) 05:43, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I only removed the "Support" section because all of the sources used were particularly biased towards just that one opinion, at least from what I was reading. I think sub-sections detailing support and criticism of Geller and her decision to start the contest are very important, since it's obviously been a controversial matter in the weeks following the attack. However, I wouldn't argue against rewording the sections for the sake of coherency, or otherwise follow your suggestions. Libertarian12111971 (talk) 07:07, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is such a thing as attributive point of view. It is quite common in many articles especially where there is controversy. Jason from nyc (talk) 13:15, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
One of the sources used was CLEARLY anti-Fox News, another had anti-Muslim sentiments, and the third was devoted to praising Geller's actions. Libertarian12111971 (talk) 18:03, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree at all with WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. But since there are multiple points of view, I think we should not simply cherrypick Gérard Biard and the Southern Poverty Law Center from the lot. Since they both have clear opinions against the AFDI, it makes the article appear as though Wikipedia is choosing sides. Taxman1913 (talk) 05:49, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional arrests[edit]

I added the information regarding the arrest and indictment of Abdul Malik Abdul Kareem in the "Perpetrators" section. At this point it seemed to be the best location as long as the charges were detailed along with the name. Some of the news articles indicate that there will be more arrests, in which case it might be more appropriate to create a new section for accomplices and co-conspirators who were not directly involved in the incident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grifterlake (talk • contribs) 02:48, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem removed[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 22:28, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

109 encrypted messages sent to "an overseas terrorist" on the day of the shooting[edit]

Not sure where this should be placed given the article's current structure, but it seems like important information that should be added:

FBI Director: Encrypted Messages Stymied Probe of Garland Shooting

"FBI Director James Comey told senators on Wednesday that an attacker who opened fire in May at an anti-Prophet Muhammad event in Texas exchanged more than 100 electronic messages with "an overseas terrorist" beforehand. But, he said, investigators couldn't find out what the shooter was talking about because the messages were encrypted."

Open to thoughts and suggestions on how and where this new information should be placed. grifterlake (talk) 03:39, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Curtis Culwell Center attack. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:32, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Curtis Culwell Center attack. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:38, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

POV-section tag for "Support and criticism of event" section[edit]

I'm adding a {{POV-section}} tag to the "Support and criticism of event" section because the section strikes me as non-neutral and WP:COATRACKy. This article is about the attacks. The fact that the attacks were in response to activities by Geller and AFDI/SIOA does not mean we should have a lengthy section reactions to Geller's and AFDI/SIOA's activities in general. Everything in this section should be tightly linked to the attacks, and everything else should be moved to Pamela Geller, Stop Islamization of America, and perhaps Islamophobia. Moreover, a section entitled "Support and criticism of event" (the event being the attack) should be primarily about reactions to the attack itself. I don't see anything in this section about people condemning the attack or otherwise talking about the attackers. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:14, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FfD: MuhammadArtExhibit.jpg[edit]

Just a notice, I have started a discussion regarding MuhammadArtExhibit.jpg at WP:Files for discussion/2017 February 16. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FBI Informant Involved in Plot[edit]

The target of the attack had this to say about news that an FBI agent was not only working with the attackers, but was driving in the car behind the attackers, taking pictures, and told them to "tear up texas". There is no mention of this in the article, perhaps because it's not notable or from a reliable source? Even if this theory is just an islamophobic diatribe, it would be worth mentioning. It was covered on CBS 60 minutes, a mainstream "reliable" news source. CBS 60 Minutes on Garland Attack: The FBI Wanted Us Dead By Pamela Geller - on March 27, 2017 JIHAD IN AMERICA "They knew about the attack, yet they didn’t have a team there in case the jihadis started shooting?It’s hard to escape the conclusion that the Obama FBI wanted me and the other speakers at the event dead." "Did Obama’s pro-Islam FBI want us all dead? What other conclusion can be reached? I’ve been trying to get my mind around this thing. What was Obama trying to do? Teach Americans a lesson?" “the future must not belong to those to slander the prophet of Islam”? Bachcell (talk) 14:11, 29 March 2017 (UTC) 60 Minutes investigates first ISIS-claimed attack in U.S. and what the FBI knew A terrorist attack in Texas by two U.S. citizens shows how hard it is to prevent such an attack -- even when one of the terrorists is well-known to the FBI Seamus Hughes: So you have the two attackers, Soofi and Simpson. They’re also talking to Mohammed Miski, who’s an ISIS recruiter in Somalia.... also talking to Junaid Hussein in Raqqa is ISIS’ stronghold in Syria... After the trial we found out that they had had an undercover agent who had been texting with Simpson, less than three weeks before the attack, to him “Tear up Texas.” Which to me was an encouragement to Simpson... government disclosed that the FBI undercover agent had actually “traveled to Garland, Texas, and was present… at the event.” Bachcell (talk) 14:23, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carried out by "two Americans from Arizona"[edit]

I have not edited any WP content in an editorial manner in nearly a decade, so I may not be up with what's policy. But isn't the intro sentence "The Curtis Culwell Center attack was carried out by two Americans from Arizona" a bit weird? Yes, it was people born in North America who attacked it. It was also males. Carnivores. Mammals. All information which is completely pointless.

Still all these are better alternatives, as there is no source given for them being from Arizona (however "being from somewhere" is defined), and one of them was born in Illinois, one in Texas.

The relevant information for an attack on a draw-Muhammad-contest by people pleading alliance to some caliphate, ISIL and the like is _islamists_. Let's not have political bias make us publish stupid articles, hmmmkay? 

   Maybe you should take another decade long hiatus, or at least read up on policy before calling the work of many hardworking editors "stupid." Now, on to why your point is so facile. Obviously the fact that these were two Americans, born and raised (for the most part) in the USoA, with presumably "Western" values and they were ones "corrupted" into carrying this attack is incredibly germane to this article and the background of the attack. 4Tildes  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.125.143.178 (talk) 18:17, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Erick Jamal Hendricks[edit]

The main article should probably be revised to include content about Erick Jamal Hendricks, who was convicted in 2018 for providing material support to the Islamic State of Iraq. Hendricks has been alleged to be the ringleader in the Garland attack and Abdul Malik Abdul Kareem has appealed his conviction on the basis of and FBI undercover agent's and Hendrick's roles in the attack. When I have time I will plan to make the edits myself at a future date if no one adds the material first. Here are some relevant sources:

--Mox La Push (talk) 08:16, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Curtis_Culwell_Center_attack&oldid=1206849280"