Jump to content

Talk:Lone wolf attack/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Personal essay

This article looks like a personal essay. Can anyone provide a citation that the term "independent terrorist actor" is used? A Google check seems to reveal mostly WP mirror sites. The term "lone wolf" is used more often.

Secondly, the section about Vietnam and the IRA was either false or incomprehensible. I've made it invisible; pasting it below in case others think there is some merit in it. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:38, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

This was true in the case of Vietnam, where the US government undertook a large terrorist operation to exacerbate the pre-existing civil conflict in Vietnam, unbeknownst to the larger American public (the cause which the public was led to support was "anti-communism"). Also the Omagh bombing in Ireland, where the "Real IRA"—a splinter group from the more conciliatory IRA, killed 29 people in a bombing attack against Ulster Loyalist families—a completely radical action, according to the mainstream Republican view.

In the Palestinian territories, a similar (but more complex) situation exists where in addition to the large organizations there are several distinct factions (mostly based on clans and blood ties), under constant pressure by retaliatory actions from Israel, tend to be extremely divided about any immediate course of action—such that they can rarely or never act in a collective or controlled manner. Under stress, the choice between action and inaction tends to default to one between violence and protest. Violence, being far more decisive than moderation and discussion, tends to win out over discussion.

The other problem with this article is that it doesn't make it clear that the connection between the individuals and the groups are alleged; that is, that it is alleged that these individuals purposely break connection with the group so that the group can then claim they had no knowledge. A less conspiracy oriented view is that these people truly do act on their own, without the guidance or approval of anyone.

I've added all the people cited for now, but the problems with this article remain. Who has designated these individuals as "Independent terrorist actors", and who has documented their arming and training by various groups, then purposeful break of connectsions? The original research in this article needs to be fixed with careful citation. Jayjg (talk) 20:57, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think this whole article needs sources. Who uses the term "lone wolf terrorism"? Do mentally ill people qualify? Do people kind-of-linked-but-not-really to formal organisations count? I'm not saying I'm sceptical of the concept: it looks very plausible. But in principle, plausible fiction is more insidious than obvious nonsense. jnestorius(talk) 14:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Untitled

Hello! Anyone want to list terrorist acts by people other than Israelis? For the last five years, I can give you ten Palestinian suicide bombings for every one Israeli incident listed on this page. This page is a gross violation of WP's policy of neutral point of view. 129.98.212.47 04:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but the Palestinian suicide bombers are not leaderless and have a definite political goal, making it incorrect to call their acts lone-wolf terrorism. -Toptomcat 18:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The imformation in here is factually incorrect. The Real IRA is a splinter group of the Provisional IRA, and not connected with the Provisionals. The two are separate groups, and the Real IRA is not a cover name for the Provisionals. A much better example would be the Red Hand Defenders (loyalist cover name) or the IRA's anti-dealer group, whose name escapes me at the minute... Will edit it to a higher standard as of tomorrow. - Supersheep

New Lead

Looking at the history of this article I can understand why this information was missing, but IMHO it was a gross oversight. "Lone-wolf" in this context came out of the US white supremacist movement, and the original "lone-wolves" actually were self-identified as such. As far as I can tell, law enforcement and media use of "lone wolf" to refer generically to single-actor terrorists followed this usage.--Saswann 03:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

John Allen Muhammad, a terrorist?

While I know, and also partly understand different reasons for not agreeing on a definition on terrorism, I find it strange that John Allen Muhammad can be classified as one in this article. If one doesn't include a political goal or something along those lines, many criminals can be defined as terrorist, and thus only help to obscure an already difficult and complex concept. -- 09:00, 22. Sept 2005

No, he wasn't a "terrorist" in the way Americans think of the work (as bug-eyed foreigners wearing winter coats on a 90-degree day), but he did go out and shoot people in the vicinity of the nation's capital, and no one's going to argue that he didn't spread "terror" throughout the area. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.165.87.40 (talk • contribs) 02:29, January 31, 2006 (UTC)

It's poor, but it's a notable subject. There is plenty of info on cell terrorism out there, but not much on this. I vote to keep, and let it be expanded. [User:stargate70]

He's definitely a terrorist; he did what he did in order to incite terror, which is more or less the definition of terrorism. Like McVeigh though, he wasn't a lone wolf; he had an accomplice (though, in the case of McVeigh, there's some amount of evidence the greater white supremacist movement might be related). Titanium Dragon 23:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Wolf trans.gif

Image:Wolf trans.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Autobiographic Detail

The present writer, with the benefit of having lived many years beyond Col. Amoss, has taken his theories and expounded upon them. Col. Amoss feared the Communists. This author fears the federal government. Communism now represents a threat to no one in the United States, while federal tyranny represents a threat to everyone . The writer has joyfully lived long enough to see the dying breaths of communism, but may, unhappily, remain long enough to see the last grasps of freedom in America.

This probably speaks for itself. I kind of want to put lots of "citation needed" tags in there. Seriously though, what should be done to this passage. I also suspect that leaderless resistance has been around for a lot longer, if not studied or called such. If anybody has information on that, I think that could go in here.

Iain marcuson (talk) 07:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Mideast section - kahanists only?

Why is the Mideast section only mentioning kahanist israelis ? That seems to be a bit one sided —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.231.68 (talk) 12:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

First sentence of the article: "A Lone Wolf or Lone-wolf fighter is someone who commits violent/non-violent acts in support of some group, movement, or ideology, but does so alone, outside of any command structure.". Emphasis mine.Mr T (Based) (talk) 16:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Terrorism or crime?

What's the difference? Some of the examples sound like ordinary crimes to me, not terrorism. Either take some out or add why the people committed them, were they targeting a certain demographic or were just mad at the US or wherever the attacks were? Williamrmck (talk) 23:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Reverted name change

The different name would only really be appropriate to a somewhat different article than this one is... AnonMoos (talk) 00:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Incongruence between title and subject

The subject is parenthetically "(terrorism)" of the "lone wolf" form. However, the opening paragraph currently reads "A lone wolf or lone-wolf fighter is someone who commits violent and/or non-violent acts in support of some group, movement, or ideology, but does so alone, outside of any command structure." Now non-violent people who support any group, movement, or ideology are "terrorists," and if they do so alone, they're "lone wolf terrorists?" Not in America! 206.124.7.109 (talk) 18:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

For now, I've removed the "non-violent" claim. 206.124.7.109 (talk) 18:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

name controversy

There is no assosciation between wolves and terrorists. A more descriptive word such as "solitary terrorism" would be more appropriate and carry much less emotional content which only serves to alarm people for no good reason. it also promotes hate towards wolves which is not good or correct in todays time of environmental activism. this word is not politically correct. 97.113.21.177 (talk) 07:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I belive you should look at the artical sources before making changes, namely the section in the artical sub-titled 'Origins of the term' and more to the point 'Current usage.' Particully current source #3. Plus external links all stating that lone wolf is the term used for this type of terrorism. The term has nothing to do with enviromentalism and this is not a forum to express your distaste in terminology. In other words, what name controversy?Peacekeeper 1234 14:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peacekeeper 1234 (talk • contribs)

Jared Loughner

I propose the deletion of Jared Loughner and the 2011 Tucson shooting from the list of Lone Wolves in the United States. As yet, there is no conclusive evidence that Loughner committed the crime "in support of some group, movement, or ideology." Though there is much speculation that heated political rhetoric may have contributed to Loughner's motivation, it remains just that - speculation. As it stands, most anecdotal evidence suggests the crime was one committed by a mentally ill individual with no clear motivation, outside of the delusional.Zengakuren (talk) 07:34, 15 January 2011 (UTC) Agreed, we should keep him off the list until the full investigation and trial are all completed before adding a suspected LWT sub section without all the facts presented to the public off this list. I feel we should keep all, future, current cases off this list till the conclusion of the case.Peacekeeper 1234 14:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peacekeeper 1234 (talk • contribs)

Loughner had a political ideology, and he committed his crime in support of it. He believed that women should not hold positions of power,[1] he distrusted government and believed they controlled language and grammar to brainwash people, that the government was creating "infinite currency" without the backing of gold and silver, that George W. Bush was behind 9/11, and that NASA was faking spaceflights.[2] He had met Gabrielle Giffords at a event in 2007 where he asked her "What is government if words have no meaning?"[3] He felt she didn't answer him fully and started planning to assassinate her.[4]Freddiefreelance (talk) 13:55, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ {url=http://www.slate.com/content/slate/blogs/scocca/2011/01/17/maybe_jared_loughner_was_a_bigot_after_all.html}
  2. ^ {url=http://www.adl.org/combating-hate/domestic-extremism-terrorism/c/the-mindset-of-jared-lee-loughner.html}
  3. ^ {url=http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/01/jared-lee-loughner-friend-voicemail-phone-message}
  4. ^ {url=http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/01/12/arizona.shooting.suspect/}

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Lone wolf (terrorism). 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.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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 01:16, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Lone wolf (terrorism). 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 04:56, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Original research, WP:BLP violations, and poorly sourced material

Most of this article is poorly sourced. There are several paragraphs without a single footnote. There are "conclusions" added by editors after the footnote, which indicates the source doesn't support the conclusion (known on Wikipedia as original research).

And the long list of "lone wolf terrorist attacks" is chock full of original research and WP:BLP violations, because very few of the sources refer to the perpetrators as "lone wolf terrorists". — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Qualification of certain attacks

NO ACTION
Discussion already underway on Talk page, please restart if no consensus reached and other dispute resolution methods exhausted. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 21:15, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

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.

Do the 2016 Philadelphia police officer shooting and the 2016 Ohio machete attack qualify as lone-wolf terrorist attacks? Parsley Man (talk) 23:54, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

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.

Why was this closed? There's a reason I started it. Parsley Man (talk) 22:06, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Lone wolf (terrorism). 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 or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 23:04, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lone wolf (terrorism). 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}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 07:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Original research, once again

Since we're still having this discussion:

  1. It is original research to include a person or event on the list as an example of lone-wolf terrorism when no reliable source describes it as an example of lone-wolf terrorism.
  2. It is a matter of using common sense and applying consensus when deciding whether to include a person or event described in reliable sources as a terrorist who acted alone, but without the exact words "lone wolf".

Removing somebody from the list because you're too damn lazy to click to the continuation of the source (on its first or second page), or click on their name and read the sources used in their Wikipedia article, is WP:POINTy. Ideally, this article should have sources for every name and incident. Realistically, most editors believe that sourcing somewhere in the encyclopedia is sufficient. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:51, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

No, sourcing "somewhere in the encyclopedia" is not sufficient when the matter is contested. Jonathunder (talk) 03:58, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on the below RFC if an item needs to be explicitly labeled as a lone wolf, or is an event committed by a sole person.... a lone wolf terror attack. Sir Joseph (talk) 04:00, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
I agree with you, Jonathunder, but above I described what most editors consider acceptable sourcing. I'm familiar with what WP:SAL#Citing sources says:
Stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines for articles, including verifiability and citing sources. This means statements should be sourced where they appear, they must provide inline citations if they contain any of the four kinds of material absolutely required to have citations.
When an inline citation is not required by a sourcing policy and editors choose to name more sources than strictly required, then either general references or inline citations may be used. It is generally expected that obviously appropriate material, such as the inclusion of Apple in the List of fruits, will not be supported by any type of reference, since plenty of good references exist at the article.
— Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:13, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Third opinion on Lone wolf attacks

Do you think attacks removed in this edit, 2016 Philadelphia police officer shooting and the 2016 Ohio machete attack, are classified as lone wolf? Thank you. cc: E.M.Gregory (talk · contribs), Parsley Man (talk · contribs). Spirit Ethanol (talk) 23:01, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

"Being investigated/treated as terrorist attacks" and "being classified as terrorist attacks" are two very different things. The former means officials are investigating the events to see if there is a terrorism component to them and the motive (and therefore, treating it with the mindset that it is a terrorist attack), while the latter pretty much confirms that the event is a terrorist attack. In both cases, federal authorities are still investigating these events as terrorist attacks. In the Philadelphia shooting, Edward Archer was also claimed to be mentally ill, which could complicate his claim of support for ISIS, since it may just be the ranting of an insane person who doesn't know what he is talking about. In the Ohio attack, the perp is dead, so the only thing the FBI has to go off on right now is their 2011 investigation of him, and so far, we don't know much of anything about it other than he made some radical statements. Parsley Man (talk) 23:08, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
That's what they all say, criminal defense attorneys that is when asked to defend the indefensible; see, for example, Anders Behring Breivik. What else can defenders of men like Breivik, the attacker in the 2016 Philadelphia police officer shooting, or the 2016 Ohio machete attack say? However, not only does the insanity defense rarely succeed, it does not do what you seem to want it to do since even individuals diagnosed with schizophrenia and other serious mental illnesses often fail to meet the legal standards for diminished responsibility. It is, in other words, it is not only entirely possible for an individual to have a ideological commitment to an ideology (such as white supremacy, right to life, anarchism), to be a supporter of a radical political movement (such as Isis) ISIS, and to be diagnosed with a serious mental illness, and yet to be judged guilty by a court of law, it is commonplace.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:37, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Find reliable sources that describe the incidents as examples of lone wolf terrorism. Otherwise you're violating WP:NOR and WP:BLP. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:42, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Both articles are sourced and bluelinked.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:58, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Big deal. Which if the three sources [1][2][3] says the perpetrator was a lone wolf terrorist? Hint: None. The sources don't describe them as Israeli price tag attacks either. Why don't we include them at List of Israeli price tag attacks as well? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:10, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
How did Israel get dragged into this?E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:19, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
These perpetrators have as many sources identifying them as lone wolf terrorists as they do connecting them to Israeli price tag attacks: none. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:00, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
This is a discussion of two specific attacks, one in Philadelphia and the other in Columbus, Ohio. Please leave your personal obsession with Israel at the door.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:51, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Entries are required to meet the definition of a lone wolf attack: "someone who commits violent acts in support of some group, movement, or ideology, but who does so alone, outside of any command structure and without material assistance from any group. Although the lone wolf prepares and acts alone, the perpetrator may be influenced or motivated by the ideology and beliefs of an external group." There is no requirement that Sources must use the precise words "lone wolf" they can describe the attacker/attack with other words, such as "acted alone", "inspired by", "pledged alliegiance to", etc. Of course, if the attacker in Philadelphia or Columbus is later found to have gotten material assistance from ISIS, Al Qaeda or similar groups, the entries can be removed when that becomes clear. These investigations are both ongoing, and have established Islamist inspiration.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:47, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
If the source doesn't say "lone wolf", it's not an example of lone wolf terrorism. There's a policy against your approach: WP:No original research. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 16:04, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
I disagree. My interpretation constitutes reliable sourcing and follows the stipulations on what goes on this list. Let's both back off and let other editors weigh in.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:13, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Except your "reliable sourcing" always keep treating these incidents as possible lone-wolf terrorist attacks. There's nothing in anything you're providing that outwardly, explicitly confirms your claims. If they did, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now. Parsley Man (talk) 22:09, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Are you serious Sir Joseph? Haven't you heard about our policies such as No original research and verifiability? AusLondonder (talk) 01:34, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
The thing is, none of the officials involved in the respective investigations have concretely classified these incidents as lone-wolf attacks. None of the sources do either. Compare their coverage to that of the 2015 San Bernardino attack, including reactions from officials such as the President. Can you see a difference? Parsley Man (talk) 01:37, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
All I'm saying is that a lone wolf terrorist attack is a by definition item. It's an act of terror committed by one person not acting with the support of an organization. It doesn't need to be explicitly mentioned as such, we go by the definition. It has nothing to do with OR, if it is, then redo this whole article, because what then is a lone-wolf attack? Sir Joseph (talk) 02:53, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
To answer your question "what is a lone-wolf attack?" - a lone-wolf attack is an incident described my authorities and reliable sources as a lone-wolf attack. We don't do the defining. That's made clear at WP:OR AusLondonder (talk) 03:18, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Really? Not by the definition in the lead? So you won't object when I remove Baruch Goldstein from the list? Nothing in that ref calls him a lone-wolf. And I went through a few others and the refs cited don't say lone wolf. So the question is, is a lone wolf a person who commits an act of terror acting alone, or is it someone who is called a lone wolf in a reliable source? Sir Joseph (talk) 03:22, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
ahem nableezy - 15:25, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

We now see the bias of editors when they put back in items that don't mention "lone wolf" but will not allow other terror attacks into the article. Either an event has to have lone wolf mentioned in the news or it doesn't. You can't pick and choose. Sir Joseph (talk) 03:51, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Islam-Shooter-Stolen-Police-Gun-Jessie-Hartnett-Officer-364664771.html - Philly shooting is lone wolf, and this is one of many calling that event a terror event. Sir Joseph (talk) 04:05, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Excuse me, but I personally think the Philadelphia and Ohio incidents sound like lone-wolf terrorist attacks. There is no bias going on from my end. It's just that, from a neutral perspective, classifying these events as such right away sounds way too quick for me when the information we have right now brings conflicting perspectives. And I'm disregarding the refs. They cover what they can cover; all I'm concerned about is if these officials in the investigations or anyone else with an authority in the field of terrorism are calling them examples of lone-wolf terrorism. Last I heard, they continued treating it as a possibility (i.e. I keep seeing terms like "possible terrorist attack"). That kind of rhetoric puts me in doubt about this. There's always the possibility that they'll ultimately say, "No, this is not a terrorist attack, this is just some mentally ill individual who committed this attack and made this statement just to get some attention." The possibility that these suspects really are in fact mentally ill individuals just desiring attention (the mental health of the Philadelphia suspect has been heavily pronounced in reports as much as the terrorism angle) brings me into further doubt. Should we classify these events as such if these strong possibilities exist? And if we ultimately do classify them that way and the officials finally say they don't fit that criteria, should those categories be kept? With all of that in mind, does all of this qualify as WP:OR? That's just what I'm worried about, and why I want to hold off on categorizing these events. Parsley Man (talk) 07:10, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
In short, I agree with going by the lone-wolf definition, but there are other factors to consider as well before acting. Parsley Man (talk) 07:14, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Let it be known that while the 2009 Fort Hood shooting bears the hallmarks of lone-wolf terrorism (Nidal Hasan even shouted "Allahu Akbar!", viewed videos by Anwar al-Awlaki, and attended a mosque that had ties to some 9/11 hijackers), it's not being classified as such on Wikipedia, and there is a big controversy over whether it should be classified as such. Just a thought. Parsley Man (talk) 19:02, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
This site, http://www.terrorismanalysts.com/pt/index.php/pot/article/view/preventing-lone-wolf classifies it as a lone wolf attack. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:28, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
One source doesn't equate to immediate classification. Like I said, there's a controversy over classifying it as such. Some do say it is such or want it to be as such, and others (i.e. the United States Army) think quite the opposite. And read the last paragraph of the lede of the Nidal Hasan article. I'm willing to bet if you put his article and the Fort Hood shooting article under those categories, it'll probably be reverted. Parsley Man (talk) 20:42, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

RFC for inclusion

There is consensus that the specific phrase "lone wolf" does not have to occur in the sources. There is, however, no clear consensus on a general definition of what counts as a lone wolf; this probably entails that each new incident has to be considered separately, as Irondome suggested. (non-admin closure) Dionysodorus (talk) 21:19, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

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.

Does an event need to have newssources/other sources explicitly mention "lone wolf" or does the fact that the event had a perpetrator act alone in support of a group, movement or ideology (or as the lead defines lone wolf). Sir Joseph (talk) 03:56, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment Obviously (to my thinking) the exact phrase "lone wolf" does not have to be the deciding factor here. Similar terms can suffice. Suggest we take the approach of subjecting new incidents to consensual discussion, and treat them as unique events and weigh wording used by Reliable sources reporting such incidents. Irondome (talk) 04:05, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I think any terror event that is properly sourced that the perpetrator acted alone but in support of a group, movement or ideology can be listed here. The news doesn't need to explicitly say lone wolf for the person to be a lone wolf. A person acting alone in support... is by definition a lone wolf. Sir Joseph (talk) 04:07, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  • This is a malformed question, and this RfC is therefore invalid. The question isn't whether sources describe "a perpetrator" as a "lone wolf"; as I wrote above in #Original research, once again, the question is whether sources describe the person as a terrorist. Only terrorists may be included in this article, not perpetrators. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:18, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree with Irondome and Sir Joseph, but I also think other issues need to be considered first before a classification is made, i.e. mental health. Parsley Man (talk) 08:51, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  • 'Comment following Malik, I think the context obliges editors to consider sources that specifically contextualize acts done by terrorists acting on their own. Whether then, the person is described literally as a lone wolf or by some cognate term or pariphrase such as a perpetrator acting according to his own darks is a secondary issue, as Irondome, I believe, implies.Nishidani (talk) 19:42, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment "Lone wolf" = any terrorist acting alone. We obviously done need the exact word "lone wolf". And as Sir Joseph - pointed out earlier on the talk page users on both sides of the argument are agreeing that terrorists are to be added even though they don't use the words "lone wolf". CaseeArt Talk 06:48, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree with Irondome above. Each case is different. As for Caseeart's comments, most terrorists work under the help or instruction of others, regardless of whether they perpetrate the act itself alone. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 13:10, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree with CaseeArt "Lone wolf" = any terrorist acting alone. If you only use sources that use the term "Lone Wolf" It may exclude significant events where that term was never used in covering the event. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 20:54, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Pretty pointless question if it is not 100% established that these are RSd as terrorists. Clearly they are not lone wolves by our definition if there is any significant doubt about that. Pincrete (talk) 21:39, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Possible compromise

Due to the arguments being made by both sides of this discussion, I think I might have a potential solution to this: the creation of a suspected terrorists category or something of that nature. We can use it if certain attacks look like acts of terrorism but have not been confirmed by officials as such. Comments? Parsley Man (talk) 20:54, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Not a compromise but a BLP nightmare and likely violation in most cases.--TMCk (talk) 21:21, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
I agree with --TMCk (talk). The term Lone Wolf is common enough in English Language media coverage that the vast majority of readers will understand it in the context of a person acting alone. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 20:57, 7 June 2016 (UTC)


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.

Ali Muhammad Brown Disputed

  • From April 27-June 25, 2014 Ali Muhammad Brown killed 3 men in Seattle and one in New Jersey. He had been convicted in bank fraud scheme which the FBI believed but was unable successfully link to fundraising for terrorists in Africa. His motive for seemingly random crimes was only known after after he told authorities he followed his Muslim faith as his mission was "vengeance for lives are lost every day...[in] Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan" [1] Bachcell (talk) 14:13, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ CNN Police: Seattle man's hatred of U.S. foreign policy motivated killings By Ashley Fantz, Pamela Brown and Aaron Cooper, CNN Tue September 16, 2014
I can't see where the source says Brown is a lone wolf terrorist. Could you please quote that portion of the article for me? — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 19:38, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
You can't seriously argue that Ali Muhammad Brown was not a lone wolf, he is charged with terrorism. Bachcell (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:54, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
From April 27-June 25, 2014 Ali Muhammad Brown killed 3 men in Seattle and one in New Jersey in 3 separate attacks and previously convicted in a bank fraud scheme which was investigated for being support of terrorists in Africa. Brown seemingly random crimes were only characterized as a lone wolf and indicted on terrorism charges after he was captured and confessed to authorities he was following his Muslim faith as "vengeance for lives are lost every day...[in] Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan". [1][2][3][4][5][6]

References

  1. ^ CNN Police: Seattle man's hatred of U.S. foreign policy motivated killings By Ashley Fantz, Pamela Brown and Aaron Cooper, CNN Tue September 16, 2014
  2. ^ [Man Indicted On Terrorism Charges In Murder Of College Student In West Orange Ali Muhammad Brown Allegedly Said He Was On 'Bloody Crusade' To Punish U.S. July 2, 2015 CBS New York]
  3. ^ Finding lone wolves before they strike July 19, 2015 Orange County Register "attacks committed by these apparent lone wolves represent a terrifying pattern"
  4. ^ 'Greta Investigates Lone Wolves – Enemies Among Us,' highlights Brendan Tevlin murder case Pamela Browne By Pamela K. Browne July 31, 2015 Fox News
  5. ^ Murder suspect on personal jihad may have been groomed in Seattle barber shop By Pamela K. Browne Published November 04, 2014 "Frank Cilluffo, the director of the Homeland Security Policy Institute at George Washington University told Fox News, the investigation is still playing out…but in this case I do think he would fit in the category of lone wolf, because he did affiliate with others who were traveling to Somalia and, in this case, Al-Shabaab."
  6. ^ http://politicalscience.osu.edu/faculty/jmueller/57SENJ7.pdf TERRORISM SINCE 9/11 The American Cases Edited by John Mueller Cato Institue, Mershon Center Ohio State University "his goals were to continue his lone-wolf jihadist murder spree until he got caught"
Instead of belly-aching and typing the same things over and over, why don't you cite a reliable source that describes Brown as a lone wolf terrorist? Not a self-published book. Not a newspaper editorial. A reliable source. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Are you seriously trying to improve the article or just censor information about one of the most dangerous lone wolf terrorists who was all but ignored by CNN and New York Times until he finally was charged with terrorism? The fact is when multiple media is calling him a Lone Wolf, then he's a lone wolf. John Mueller is a terrorism expert with the Cato Institute published by a major University. Frank Cilluffo is the director of the Homeland Security Policy Institute at George Washington University. Fox News is the best source of news on terrorism as the mainstream media has proven unreliable when it comes to identifying lone wolves. Just because the Washington Post has not used the term but Fox News has experts that do call him a lone wolf does not mean he is not a lone wolf. Where does it say the standard can't include government experts, university professor experts and Fox News investigations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bachcell (talk • contribs) 04:10, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Please stop the insults and try reading our policies and guidelines. The only sources you have cited that called Brown a lone wolf are a newspaper editorial and a self-published book. They're not reliable for a biography of a living person. If you disagree, please visit either WP:RS/N or WP:BLP/N and make your case there. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:38, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Why are right wing extremist not listed here?

You state that this is a list of examples where the perpetrator acts alone in support of a group, movement or ideology. That is the description, yet there is no mention of Right Wing Extremism which is clearly terrorism and in support of a group movement and ideology. There is no mention of the mosque bombings or the case of the Labour MP Jo Cox who was murdered in the UK by the extreme rightwing terrorist Thomas Mair. Please update your page with all the facts so that we might see a real pattern of behavior emerging. One that may lead to the conclusion that male extreme violence is what needs to be addressed by our communities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.187.227 (talk) 13:22, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

How can we better understand the Lone Wolf?

The mental health of these Lone Wolf terrorists is the biggest identifier in being able to stop future attacks. What is the common denominator for these solo attacks of terrorism? Could be foreshadow terrorists in the makings and give psychological help to those showing side effects of terrorism? Are these types of terrorists more likely a younger demographic? There are many questions that need to be answered, that could help deter any citizen from these thoughts of action.

Although this type of Terrorism is "rare", there are many identified cases listed below. What can we say is common from all these people charged with terrorism? Were they truly alone? Terrorism is influenced from some sort of outlet. If people did these acts of violence randomly then it would be called a form of psychological breakdown, not terrorism. Samo56 (talk) 05:20, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lone wolf (terrorism). 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:20, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Breaking 'list of' to its own page

As-is, the list seems incredibly unwieldy and should ideally be consolidated as prose or moved to its own page. Thoughts/support/oppose? Shaded0 (talk) 03:20, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Lone wolf (terrorism). 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:07, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Lone Wolf Terrorism (Thoughts)

I felt that this is a good place to start for looking at Lone Wolf Terrorism. However, I think this article could use an update. Maybe including recent events connected to Lone Wolf Terrorism and updating the cited sources. Looking for something more recent. Holley08 (talk)Holley08

Hope the new material is responsive to your post above, Holley08Chip.berlet (talk) 16:43, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Lone wolf or Lone Wolf

  • A "Lone wolf" is an animal.
  • A "Lone Wolf" is a typology used by criminologists and other social scientists and law enforcement personnel.

... As such shouldn't the full term be capitalized throughout our entry here? Just asking for some comments and discussion.Chip.berlet (talk) 16:41, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

No. They're differentiated by context, not capitalization. WP Ludicer (talk) 04:10, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Mental Health dispute

A lot of stochastic terrorists are incentivised by the legal system to get false diagnosis as a legal defense, and a lot of political extremists will dismiss criticism of their ideology by deflecting it using mental illness arguments. There is also a lot of media sources that exploit the hysteria and stigma of mental illness with regards to acts of violence.

Most science on the other hand dispute this, and there's a lot of studies to indicate that mentally ill people are often less violent, and more likely to harm themselves. I believe it would be good to somehow cover these nuances, as to not validate what I would consider political opportunism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.69.180.157 (talk) 16:50, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Unsourced Section Removal

I have removed this unsourced and opinionated section pending a discussion here on the Talk page"

Criticism of revised Stochastic Terrorism Models

It has been asserted that the term "stochastic process" describes the "random, probabilistic nature of its effect: whether or not an attack actually takes place. And, although the actual perpetrator of an attack and its timing is not under the control of the stochastic terrorist, their actions nevertheless serve to increase the probability that it will occur." However, the use of the term "Stochastic Terrorism" by its originator, Dr Woo, was only meant to suggest that a quantifiable relationship may exist between seemingly random acts of terror and their intended goal of "perpetuating a reign of fear" via a manipulation of Mass Media and its capacity for "instant global news communication." It is this intended goal goal that allows for further speculation that "the rhythm of terror" might be expressed in probabilistic terms. Yet, the unsourced definition of "Stochastic Terrorism" provided to Daily Kos by an "anonymous blogger" expressly asserts that "the stochastic terrorist may be acting either negligently or deliberately, or may be in complete denial of their impact, just like a drunk driver who runs over a pedestrian without even realizing it" and, in the doing, fails to acknowlege that intention precludes randomness. Further compounding this error in logic and the bastardization of the progenitor's definition for "Stochastic Terrorism" is the fact that subsequent use of the term has further divorced it from the very element (i.e. intended goal) that allows for its quantification in probabilistic terms.

Discussion please?Chip.berlet (talk) 12:37, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Connected Processes Cites? I Need Help Please

I cannot cite my own work here but I think that the published sources for the phrase "Scripted Violence" often track back to me and my published chapter in a scholarly book. The chapter final draft is online at https://www.academia.edu/26640115/.

The phrase “Narratives of Killing” is from an article based on a research book https://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/genocidal-nightmares-9781628920710/ but I am not sure how to cite this and link it to the recent online article by the author: https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/killer-narratives-real-culprit-mass-shootings-190813105024726.html

There currently is this language on the page:

The terms "Killer Narratives" and "Scripted Violence" and "Stochastic Terrorism" are linked in a indirect chain "cause <:::> effect" relationship. Public use of "Killer Narratives" can prompt the rhetoric of "Scripted Violence" which can result in an act of "Stochastic Terrorism."

I think this is obvious given the rest of the material on the page, but if not, I can publish it and cite myself.

It is based on these:

“Narratives of Killing” (Abdelwahab El-Affendi) Generate the rhetoric of “Scripted Violence” (Chip Berlet) Which leads some individuals to commit unpredictable “Stochastic acts of Terrorism” (Hamm and Spaaij)

Thanks. Chip Berlet--Chip.berlet (talk) 16:00, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

"anonymous blogger" as a source?

"A derivation of Dr Woo's stochastic terrorism model was proffered by an anonymous blogger posting on Daily Kos in 2011[30] in the attempt to describe public speech that can allegedly be expected to incite terrorism without a direct organizational link between the inciter and the perpetrator."

I'm not an expert wikipedia editor, but isn't an anonymous blog post a massive lapse in source quality? It's not authoritative, noteworthy, or even verifiable as a source. For all we know it could just be some guy trying plug original research since there's no way to determine the authorship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:56A:F52D:2200:502E:5C54:9560:9227 (talk) 17:26, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Normally I would agree, but many clueless journalists relied on the anonymous post rather than check out the fact that there already had been substantial research in this area. So I think the reference should stay in some form.Chip.berlet (talk) 21:16, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

"Lone Wolf" Terrorism or "Stochastic" Terrorism"? a survey of sites

Just because it was worth checking to see if our decision to name this page "Lone wolf (terrorism)" made sense. 

'Lone Wolf" Terrorism or "Stochastic" Terrorism"?

Survey conducted online 2020/06/23 by Wikipedian Chip Berlet

Which Term is Most Used?
Selected Groups w/ Mass Public Audience 
Reporting on Acts of Terrorism

Anti-Defamation League
https://www.splcenter.org/
"Lone Wolf" Terrorism 500+ estimated: (29 search result pages of hits)
"Stochastic" Terrorism  0

Center for Analysis of the Radical Right (CARR)(Based in England)
https://www.radicalrightanalysis.com/
"Lone Wolf"  Terrorism 187
"Stochastic" Terrorism   8

Hope Not Hate
https://www.hopenothate.org.uk/
"Lone Wolf" Terrorism   8
"Stochastic" Terrorism" 1

Political Research Associates
https://www.politicalresearch.org/
"Lone Wolf" Terrorism  17
"Stochastic" Terrorism  1

Searchlight Magazine (Based in England)
https://www.searchlightmagazine.com/
Research and Analysis
"Lone Wolf" Terrorism    1
"Stochastic" Terrorism") 0

Southern Poverty Law Center
"Lone Wolf" Terrorism   107
"Stochastic" Terrorism    0

>>>  :-)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chip.berlet (talk • contribs) 19:39, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

I tried to fix the formatting for you, Chip.berlet. Normal Op (talk) 18:02, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Archiving of threads

@ImTheIP: If you want to keep threads longer, it's probably better to increase the number of days to keep threads. It was already set to 366 days (a year and a day). I just now changed the text-notation to "1 year" (previously said "1 month", incorrectly). If you wish to pull back any of the threads from archive, go ahead and "undo" from the edit history. The copy will stay in archive, but it will also reappear on this Talk page. And if you want to keep a particular thread longer than the time limit, then just post a reply to it (with timestamp); then that thread won't get archived until another year goes by. If you want to increase from 366 days, go ahead. Normal Op (talk) 18:00, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Ok. Thank you. I've found that the bot often cleans talk pages much too eagerly. It's quite annoying. ImTheIP (talk) 18:48, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
I agree. That's why I tweak the settings sometimes. Especially on pages that once were edited hot-and-heavy, the settings may be "30 days" — but now that interest in an article has settled down and rarely is edited, these Talk page discussions need to stick around a lot longer. Normal Op (talk) 21:13, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Questioning the 2002 origins of the concept

The first mention of the term "stochastic terrorism" appears to be in a 2002 article written by Gordon Woo entitled "Quantitative Terrorism Risk Assessment" in the Journal of Risk Finance.

Without using the term "stochastic terrorism", Thomas Rid describes a covert form of its origins and mechanism with the KGB in the late 1950s, under the direction of Ivan Agayants:

Agayants dispatched a small group of intelligence officers to a Russian village about fifty miles from Moscow. Their instructions: instigate anti-Semitism and gauge the village's reaction. One night, the KGB team kicked over tombstones, daubed swastikas, and painted anti-Jewish slogans. Officers reported back to Agayants that most villagers were shocked and frightened by the incident. But among a small number of Russians, they reported, the Nazi symbols and slogans triggered latent anti-Semitism and inspired them to become anti-Jewish activists on their own.

While it's clear that this doesn't meet the "mass media" criterion, it could be argued that this kind of cause and effect based on actions taken in public presaged its later use in the medium of mass communications. The point is that the effects of stochastic terrorism were well known before it was used in different ways. Viriditas (talk) 23:39, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Synthesis WP:OR concerns

The introduction paragraph in the Forms of indirect incitement section is problematic for the whole section, because this single, unsourced statement serves as the basis for the rest of the subsection's layout.

I think each of the subsections are pretty-well sourced (aside from some WP:MOS stuff that I will copy-edit after making this talk notice), but if that introduction doesn't have a good source, it really makes the whole section a WP:SYNTH, connecting the three concepts without direct evidence.

I'm going to try looking for a source that supports this, but failing that, it may be worth adjusting this section to not as strongly imply a connection between these concepts.

The best potential source for the first sentence I can find is this interview published by CIVICUS: https://www.civicus.org/index.php/es/component/tags/tag/conspiracy-theories

Scripted violence is part of a dynamic process in a society under lots and lots of stress. It starts with stories circulating in a nation that warn of subversion and conspiracies. These stories are called ‘narratives of insecurity’ by Professor Abdelwahab El-Affendi, and he warns that these stories can lead to mass violence and other forms of terrorism. The process continues with ‘scripted violence’, which is when a high-status political or religious leader publicly identifies and demonises a specific group of people alleged to be conspiring to ruin the ideal nation. The result is called ‘stochastic terrorism’. That’s an awkward term, but it just means that the specific terrorist act is unpredictable. Yet the violence has been generated by this three-step process that starts with conspiracy theories.

Its close enough in form that I'm concerned the author interviewed, Chip Berlet, may have actually gotten the idea from this article; making it an example of Citogenesis if we added it. On the other hand, it could be dropped in as a citation with almost no editing. Any thoughts?

SpurriousCorrelation 22:39, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Update: I have now tracked down the original addition of the un-sourced sentence to... Chip Berlet (note the username). That makes this not a case of synthesis, but Original Research, and unless there is another independent, verifiable source supporting the claim, I'm going to remove it per WP:OR. @Chip.berlet: I would love your input here. SpurriousCorrelation 15:24, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
After sleeping on it, I have decided to be WP:BOLD and remove the unsourced statement at this time. If or when it can be verified with a reference, please feel free to re-add it. SpurriousCorrelation 01:22, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 27 October 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Number 57 23:01, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Lone wolf attacks → Lone wolf attack – This article talks about terminology referring to a concept, not some sort of specific list, so I think we should move the article to reflect as such. Love of Corey (talk) 22:50, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lone_wolf_attack/Archive_1&oldid=1169906684"