Talk:Seattle Jewish Federation shooting

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Religion Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
	This article falls within the scope of the Interfaith work group. If you are interested in Interfaith-related topics, please visit the project page to see how you can help. If you have any comments regarding the appropriateness or positioning of this template, please let us know at our talk page

This is not a forum for general discussion of Seattle Jewish Federation shooting. Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of the article.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Seattle Jewish Federation shooting article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	Judaism Portal Seattle Jewish Federation shooting is part of WikiProject Judaism, a project to improve all articles related to Judaism. If you would like to help improve this and other articles related to the subject, consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Judaism articles.
Project Judaism To-do: edit purge watch Here are some tasks you can do: Requests: Jewish and Biblical Units of Measurement or some such name, to include material of Ancient Hebrew units of measurement but also Talmudic units and use in Halacha (a la the Hebrew Wikipedia article he:מידות ומשקלות תורניים) Collaboration of the week { Cleanup: Jewish mythology - needs to be rewritten to be inline with our other mythology articles. Expand: Yom Ha'atzmaut - quite short for an article of such importance Wikiversity: School of Jewish Studies. Part of the new open content university, Wikiversity. Stubs: Category:Judaism stubs, Category:Tanakh stubs, Category:Synagogue stubs Update: Portal:Judaism is WikiProject Judaism's frequently updated portal. You can help make this the best portal on Wikipedia. Look at the talk page to see how you can help. Template loop detected: Template:WikiProject Judaism
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Contents 1 Article should be moved 2 Page history 3 See also 4 Attempt at editorializing 5 Writing 6 3RR 7 Oops!! 8 Removed text 9 Created page on Jewish Fed 10 August 1999 Los Angeles Jewish Community Center shooting 11 photo 12 NPOV 13 Revert 14 what was going on in Israel 15 Continued Vandalism and POV editing 16 Site of the event 17 Npov-section tag removed 18 Terrorist? 19 3 revert rule 20 Unsourced text removed 21 Still current? 22 Another useful source 23 Cerejota's heading changes 24 Hate crime or terrorism? 25 Removal and changes without discussion 26 Categories 27 Fair use rationale for Image:Spi frontpage cropped 1.jpg 28 Moving article 29 Islam and antisemitism? 30 "Islam and antisemitism" categorization 30.1 Discussion 31 Fair use rationale for Image:Spi frontpage cropped 1.jpg 32 Motivation

[edit] Article should be moved

I think that this article should be moved to July 2006 Seattle Jewish Federation shooting. Both the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and the Seattle Times have said that the shooting occurred at the Federation building, not the Jewish Center. Although it initially said it was the Jewish Center, CNN now says it was the Federation as well. Does anyone see a reason not to move the page? GabrielF 02:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Is "July" needed in this article's title? It is unlikely there will be another shooting at the Jewish Federation this year. Also, is there any standard format for naming articles like this? The actual name of the place is the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle, but perhaps what is meant in the title isn't "Seattle Jewish Federation" "shooting" but "Seattle" "Jewish Federation shooting"? --Lukobe 17:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page history

We seem to have lost the page history. Was the move a cut-and-paste? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I see it was. That's a no-no, I'm afraid. The page will have to be deleted and the histories merged. If it suddenly goes red, that's the reason. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, it's done. It can take the server some time to catch up, in case it doesn't look right for awhile. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] See also

How about you explaining on talk why you want to remove it, instead of continuing to do so? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Because it is irrelevant. The cases are not related, and its to early to have a comparative tally as per WP:RS/WP:V standards and including it at this point is an excercise in WP:OR.

--Cerejota 07:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Can you cite the V or RS section you're relying on? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I am attempting shorthand, not and excercise in wikilawyering. Essentially what I meant is that it is relevant as per your opinion, but not that of reliable sources, or that the claim that they are related meets verifiability, in that sense the entire text and spirit of thos epolicies applies, not just x or y section. Until this changes, the inclusion can be read as POV drive WP:OR. Wikipedia is not itself a WP:RS. Am sure you know more about thos than I do...--Cerejota 07:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I see someone has added an irrelevant link. As SlimVirgin has me under threat I won't revert, but this is also an irrelevant link that constitutes WP:OR at best, POV driven at worse, and diminishes quality by confusing the issues.--Cerejota 08:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I am adding "Assassination of Yitzhak Rabin" as it is a relevant example of an assassination of a Jewish person. It is as relevant as the Buford shooting, that is to say, irrelevant to this story, but if we are going to have an NPOV article then we are going to have an NPOV article, even if it means including irrelvant links because they fit a given POV narrative.--Cerejota 14:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The Buford shooting is relevant because it was a shooting at an American Jewish institution. I have heard CNN mention that incident when discussing this one. We might also add Hate crime or Shooting spree to the See Also section. The Rabin shooting is not relevant. This was not an "assassination", it was a shooting spree. Just because Rabin was Jewish, doesn't make his assassination relevant. If you're trying to add his assassination to make the article NPOV as you suggest, than you are violating WP:NOR, since you are the only one who is suggesting that there is a connection. Finally, if you feel that an addition to an article is irrelevant, the solution is NOT to add even more irrelevant links to prove a point. See WP:POINT. GabrielF 15:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course, Where is that CNN source? In the middle of doing original research you raise that I am doing the same, which just proves the point that its inclusion is done to further a POV. The Budford shooting is different for a number of reasons, the main one being that the shooting there was motivated by pure anti-semitism and racism, including the shooting of a Filipino postal worker. Whereas this attack is obviously motivated in reponse to the going ons in Lebanon.

While I personally deplore the action, in writing an encyclopedia we must not mislead readers into connecting things that are only connected in the mind of a certain POV, but remain neutral. The Assasination of Rabin is more relevant because it is the same type of motiviation, which just constitutes and observation of fact and not OR: jewish people killed because of actions of the Israeli state. That is an obvious non-controversial, factual connection and is not original research.--Cerejota 12:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The complete opposite of what you claim is true. —Viriditas | Talk 10:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Attempt at editorializing

The FBI agent said "We believe it's a lone individual acting out his antagonism." He didn't say (although its implied) that it was just a "lone individual". Context is key. I think NPOV is better met by the direct quote. I dare not presume to tell readers what the FBI agent meant with what he said, which in the way the its currently written the article does. --Cerejota 07:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. The quote is there. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Because you put it back... there is history you know? :D--Cerejota 07:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't put anything "back." No idea what you mean. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Writing

Could people please pay some attention to the writing? The story has to flow, have a narrative, and not just be a collection of randomly placed sentences. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

For example, what is the point of continually separating the quote? It is part of the story. And you have probably violated 3RR. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Cerejota, you are engaging in extremely unhelpful editing. Something lacking a source does not mean it is OR. Please review our content policies before continuing to edit. They are WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. Also review WP:3RR, which you appear to have violated. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Go look for sources yourself instead of being so lazy and unpleasant. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

A personal attack? Great.

Now, I put fact tags, which are there for the explicit purpose of signaling editors to the lack of sources. They exist for a reason, and I used them correctly. You seem to assume I was being lazy, instead of thinking I was looking for the citations, which is what you should be doing as per WP:AGF. --Cerejota 07:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

(this is from my talk page--Cerejota 07:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC))

I think you have violated 3RR at the Seattle story. Please review WP:3RR. Any undoing of another editor's work is a revert. If you have violated it, please take the opportunity to revert yourself. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I have not. As per WP:RR:

"Reverting without edit warring

As the purpose of this policy is to prevent edit warring, it should not be taken to apply in cases where it is clear that no edit warring has taken place. For instance, consecutive edits by the same editor are considered to be one; thus if an editor makes three separate successive edits, each of which reverts a different section, but with no intervening edits by other editors, this is counted as one revert. Likewise, if there are intervening edits but they are clearly unrelated or non-contentious, such as a bot adding an interwiki link to a foreign language version of the page, this does not increase the 'revert count'."

When I realized that indeed there was an edit war, I stopped and placed a NPOV tag in the section in question. NPOV tag is placing additional content not a revert, and proceed to engage in discussion in talk, not removing it. Now I ask you, as is my policy, to discuss things in the talk paghe they belong, not my talk page. I understand that policy requieres you inform me in my talk page, and I thank you for it, but lets move it now where it is relevant.--Cerejota 07:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you are over reacting? Edit conflicts are a good thing, are what make wikipedia grow. Instead of getting agravated, perhaps you could discuss things before assuming things?--Cerejota 07:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

No, this is not a good thing, and you were undoing my work, not adding to it; therefore you were violating 3RR. Most of what you have done is add the clean-up tag twice, separated the Muslim quote from the others, added citation tags instead of looking for sources, used provocative and completely false edit summaries (e.g. NOR!!!!!!), and reverted, reverted, reverted. In the meantime, others are writing the article, and others are supplying sources. Please think about it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, I didn't report you for 3RR even though you didn't take the opportunity to revert yourself when offered. However, if you continue to revert, I will report you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead and report me. I didn't violate WP:3RR, but I am willing to subject myself to a desicion. I will not allow an uncivil threat to silence me in this way.--Cerejota 08:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to report you. I want you to stop editing by undoing other people's work. It doesn't have to be the same material that is removed each time. See WP:3RR. Here are your removals (one is where you moved a quote out of the main text, rather than remove it, but you knew it was contested). You also didn't stop to check your facts (e.g. the FBI did use the expression "lone wolf") and you removed material pointlessly (e.g. why remove that the Federation was founded in 1926?):

• 04:20
• 06:59
• 07:05
• 07:07
• 07:30 SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

As I said, when I realized that there was strong contention, I stoped editing and added instead a NPOV tag and explained in the talk page. WP:3RR is meant to stop edit wars from happening, not to stop people from editing. I sustain that the bulk of my edits where done before an edit war was apparent and when one was obvious I stopped. I removed only unsourced material, or material I explained as irrelevant or WP:OR. (For example, the FBI didn't mention "lone wolf" in the original linked article used as a source, or the original research regarding the connection of this attack to other attacks against Jewish organizations, which is orignal research if no independent source is doing the connection). Your diffs compared to the talk page compare this

And my edits on structure have for the most part stuck, you did do some valid corrections to it but it was done to better article quality without diminishing information.

So that leaves us with just one edit that is part of an edit war.

I think you overreacted, in particular your personal attack stands as an example, and you still haven't apologized for it.

As I said, if you have something, just go ahead and report me, I have full trust in the process, and if I am guilty, then I will pay. Anything else is just an uncivil attempt to intimidate a fellow editor who doesn't share your POV.--Cerejota 20:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not a question of POV. It's a question of bad editing. It's that you have contributed nothing but trouble. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

That's an understatement. The user is a troll, accuses other editors of his own actions, engages in WP:POINT, edit warring, adds tags without reason, and is incapable of discussing anything without engaging in personal attacks. —Viriditas | Talk 10:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oops!!

I swear that I searched and searched, but did not find anything about the Jewish Federation Building shooting, so I created an article of which I was quite proud, and compliant with Wiki principles. However, going through the 2006 page, I found the link the this page, which is quite a bit more thorough. Any suggestions on what I should do? In addition, how can this be better prevented?

- NGC6254 13:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I have redirected your article here. Your article looks pretty extensive, so it may have some content that should be added here. I didn't see anything after a cursory scan, but I'd suggest looking at the last version before I redirected it in the page history and moving over any significant differences. Good work on your article - sorry that it was a duplicate :) GabrielF 14:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

P.S. - Good work grabbing that image from the TV station. GabrielF 14:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed text

"She had reportedly covered her stomach with her arms in order to protect her fetus."

This material is not needed; too detailed and may not be true (the reportedly.) Provokes emotion. Also removing prevents edit war over replacing "unborn child" with "fetus".  ; - ) FloNight ^talk 21:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that was actually the better solution, but I am a bit sensitive due to the personal attacks I have recieved for being bold.--Cerejota 03:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

It was put back. That section is not NPOV until that is removed.--Cerejota 05:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Created page on Jewish Fed

Since this is an article on a shooting that took place there, not about the Federation, I have created a page and a redirect to that page (one with "The" and the other without "The"). It currently contains the text originally from here, and a one line mention of it gaining notoriety via the shooting. It is a stub and needs to be expanded.--Cerejota 03:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] August 1999 Los Angeles Jewish Community Center shooting

Regarding this related incident, it has been referred to in at least three current articles about the July 2006 Seattle shooting including KING5.com [1], The Daily Telegraph [2], and The Los Angeles Times [3]. —Viriditas | Talk 04:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough.--Cerejota 02:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] photo

I don't believe we can use the current photo in this article. It doesn't qualify as "fair use." --Lukobe 17:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Please eloborate, as I am new to this and don't quite understand. Thanks -- NGC6254 09:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The tag on the image reads

Seattle Jewish Federation shooting . This particular use doesn't qualify. --Lukobe 18:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

But this is a screenshot. -- NGC6254 23:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

But it's not really being used for "for identification and critical commentary on the station ID or program and its contents", is it? --Lukobe 00:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification -- NGC6254 05:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

Labeling Robert Spencer as "right-wing" is unnecessarily POV, so I have removed that characterization. I think the quote is sufficient to let the reader know where Mr. Spencer's sympathies lie. Godfrey Daniel 21:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revert

I reverted and unexplained edit backk to the last good edit. And thata revert is possibly a violation of WP:3RR althought I am not sure. Will the wikiesquires please stand up? And please discuss changes.--Cerejota 02:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Your edits are problematic for the following reasons: One, you reverted back to your version, not to the "last good edit", so please don't try to play games. Two, you have been reminded of the 3RR many times, so you should be aware of it, and if you are unsure, you should self-revert. Three, the changes are yours, so you have the burden to explain them, not me. Four, your inclusion of a main/split article header should probably wait until the AfD for said article is finished. Five, your removal of inline links (2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict) and placement in the see also section is less preferred than links in the body of the article which seeks to explain the conflict in the context of the article body, not as an ancillary topic. Six, your apparent motive for removing inline links and placing them in the see also section seems to be the basis for your subsequent addition of the unrelated link, 2006 Israel-Gaza conflict, to the article. —Viriditas | Talk 08:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I have explained all my edits in this talk page, and yet another false accusation of WP:3RR. I did revert to last good edit, even if it happened to be mine. You are just reverting me for fun. If you have disagreements, please express them, don't revert without explanation.

Four, your inclusion of a main/split article header should probably wait until the AfD for said article is finished says who? you? who are you? An artcile can be in AfD and we can include it until its removed. Besides, the section is not just a link to that page, but a valif rename to reduce redudancy (ie the title), it is called, erm, article quality?

Last I didn't remove any inline links at all so thats a false accusation. Look at the Diffs. I actually put the inline link in the first place, and then put it in "See Also" after someone else removed it. Please look carefully before falsely accusing people.--Cerejota 07:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the "false accusation of 3RR", there seems to be a communication problem. I was responding to your claim that you violated 3RR. If that's not what you meant, look over what you originally wrote. You're right about the inline links; you didn't remove them, you duplicated them in the see also section and added another one, so I apologize for saying you "removed" it. I'm not clear on why you are duplicating links and adding an irrelevant link to the see also section. As for the section on the Jewish Federation, there is no need to split at this time. —Viriditas | Talk 09:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree: a page on a site that gained notoriety is different form a page on the event that gave it notoriety. One of the benefits of an online encyclopedia is that we must not conserve paper, so we can make pages if needed. I hope the site's page can be built up and information added, rather than people wanting to hide information and confuse things for whatever reasons. Duplicating links in a see also is common practice, as the see also serves as digest of the relevant wiki pages mentioned in the article. So you are just being a vandal.--Cerejota 21:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Please stick to the issues and avoid PA. You seem to be more interested in pushing your POV than in contributing to an encyclopedia. —Viriditas | Talk 02:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

That is funny!!! As to PA you are the only one who has engaged in constant unexplained reverts and personal attacks against me, and have engaged in vandalism. It is obvious that you are the one not interested in building an encyclopedia, at least not one that is NPOV.--Cerejota 05:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Please stop trolling this talk page. —Viriditas | Talk 10:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] what was going on in Israel

Since it would be OR to speculate to what the suspect refered to, and we have a responsibility to build the web, I think the links to both the 2006 Israel-Gaza conflict and 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict should be included in the see also section. They are very relevant to the case, as they are the admitted motivation of the shooter (unless there are other notable events I am not aware off that the shooter might have alluded to).--Cerejota 07:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

No, that is OR on your part. Please stick to the facts, and the facts alone. The 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict is already linked in the article, so I am again, unclear as to why you are duplicating links in the see also section. —Viriditas | Talk 09:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

This not original research: the suspect clearly said his motive was "what was going on in Israel": linking to what is going on in Israel is not OR, it is obvious. What would be OR is to include only one of the links. I don't understand why you oppose the building of the web and the inclussion of relevant information, according to the existing sources. I am replacing your vandalism.--Cerejota 21:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

BTW I might be missing something, but I havent seen either of these articles linkes as inline text.--Cerejota 21:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

A link to the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict appears at the end of the JF section with text that reads "ongoing conflict with Hezbollah in Lebanon." —Viriditas | Talk 01:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

According to the official charging papers (linked at the article) Haq was making a statement not only about the current situation in Israel, but also in Iraq as well. I will add a paragraph detailing his motivations later. I think that will be more informative than listing things in a See Also section. GabrielF 21:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

That is true, but until then why can we include the links?--Cerejota 21:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Including the links sounds fine to me, but there's no reason to remove content from the Federation section. Readers shouldn't have to go to another page to read a couple of relevant sentences. GabrielF 21:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't see any good reason for including a link to the Gaza conflict in the see also section. —Viriditas | Talk 01:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Erm, because the shooter says "what is happening in israel" is his motive? Since it would be OR to arbitrarly select any of the events, we must include all events.--Cerejota 12:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

No, we musn't interpret anything like you have done. We can only cite sources and go on facts. Please stop adding your spin to this article. —Viriditas | Talk 20:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Come on, there is no spin it that. We are not making any new conclusions or new theories or anything by including the links. The suspect clearly and verifiabiably said he did the shooting because "of what is going on in israel". Links to what is going on in Israel are not OR, but is ismply providing links to what is going on in Israel. Saying that the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict and the 2006 Israel-Gaza conflict are what are going on in Israel is not OR, it is simply logical, wikipedia policy sanctioned context. Read WP:NOR, it is specifically geared towards the expression of new ideas that cannot be verifiable by sources (such as joining this shooting with others in the past), not to diminish contextual happenings. By including these links we are not introducing any new idea or theory, we are simply giving context to the comment of the supect, which nPOV requires we do. You are being highly illogical and not being useful. We have to build the web and this is best done by providing context.--Cerejota 08:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The context of this shooting is discussed in the article, and 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict is linked in context. Your decision to include a link to the Gaza conflict is your interpretation. We don't interpret what Haq says. —Viriditas | Talk 20:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

You are wrong. Haq didn't say he did because of "what is going on in lebanon" but because of "what is going on in israel". To choose the Lebanon conflct over the Gaza conflict is OR, as we are excluding a fact for orginal reasons. You are performing original research by doing this. Now, I have said that perhaps other things are going on in Israel that might inform a shooter of muslim origin and we must include them, but I dont know them...

Now that you mention it, then perhaps a link to "Arab-Israeli conflict" rather than to individual pages? Dunno, but article quality and building the web seem to require that we link to "what is going on in israel" which has bene my point all along.--Cerejota 21:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict is not linked and has been actively deleted, so I don't understand your comment in this regards.--Cerejota 21:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you're finally starting to think about the issue and actually discuss it. The fact is, the Lebanon link was added in the context of the Jewish Federation protest, where it belongs, so that answers your question. As for Haq, last I checked he mentioned the "middle east" and "Israel", and that should certainly be addressed in the body of the article without duplicating links. —Viriditas | Talk 00:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

You obnviously having been reading the talk page, as this very section was opened by me to discuss the issues. Your accusation I haven't is spurious.

I am not duplicating any links, I am sumarizing relevant see also links. This is done as amatter of routine in many articles as a convinience for readers. If we follow that logic, we must also make the link on the Budford case an inline link as an explanation on other attacks. It makes no sense and I am re-putting them. Please do not delete as this will violate WP:3RR.--Cerejota 04:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

According to the source: "Six women were shot - one fatally - this afternoon at the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle by a man who told a witness he was upset about "what was going on in Israel."[4]. He didn't mention the middle east, nor Lebanon, nor Gaza, nor anything. So what is going on in Israel? For starters, those two conflicts. That is building the web.--Cerejota 05:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

This has already been discussed. You are duplicating links that are already discussed in the context of the appropriate section. For the most part, you seem to be trolling. —Viriditas | Talk 10:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Including links in the "See Also" section for clarity is not duplication of links.--Cerejota 11:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Continued Vandalism and POV editing

I am not launching a personal attack, rather, I am upset my relevant, NPOV, sourced editing has been removed without real discussion by blanket reverts.--Cerejota 21:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Please take a break from this article and come back when you have cooled down. —Viriditas | Talk 01:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Site of the event

Again, a section titled Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle is fully redundant, and that is included in the title of the article. Its ugly and reads wrong.

In a related matter, no problem including the full text, if thats consensus, but I don't understand why an expanded article of the federation itself is not needed. It has gained notoriety, a standard for new articles. The contemporary trajectory of the site of the shooting is now of encyclopedic interest, regardless of how notoriety was gained.--Cerejota 12:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

This has to do with the length of the article and the necessity of a split, not why an article is or is not needed. —Viriditas | Talk 20:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Thats the issue, its not a split, its a new stub article, because the site is now notorious and worthy of an encyclopedic entry.--Cerejota 08:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Call it what you like; you split the article in this edit and previous edits, removing content. The subject of the importance of the article itself is not the issue. —Viriditas | Talk 20:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

This was not my original intention and when this was raised in talk I left the text intact, so this is a moot point. Please read the article. That is why talk pages are important.--Cerejota 22:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern, but I've read the talk pages. Please stop duplicating the Lebanon link in the see also section and please stop adding links just because you feel like it. —Viriditas | Talk 00:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

You obviously haven't read these talk pages, as they show I have explained all my edits. Please apologize for your personal attack saying I am putting links for fun.--Cerejota 04:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I've read the talk page and I've ignored most of your personal attacks. You haven't provided any justification for why you are adding duplicate and unrelated links to the see also section other than because you feel like it. —Viriditas | Talk 10:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

You might disagree with my explanations, but they are for many different reasons than for fun as it obvious. I have not attacked you personally, I have pointed out your behaivior.--Cerejota 11:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Npov-section tag removed

I've removed the tag that was added by Cerejota without justification. —Viriditas | Talk 10:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a lie. I explained the tag. Again you prove you don't read the talk page. Specifically here[5]. It was not unjustified. You might disgaree with it, but it is not unjustified. This is the third time you misrepresent and lie about one of my edits, fortunatelly there is a record for those with enough good faith to follow it. I ask you again to please cease personal attacks, vandalism, and trolling.--Cerejota 11:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Grow up. If you want to correct an error, you don't call someone a liar. Your edit summary read "npov section". It is a good habit to also add "see talk". Furthermore, you added your reason in the eighth section of a 19 section talk page and not to the bottom of the page. Finally, your reason doesn't appear to pan out. It's not a question of neutrality but of citation. If you needed a cite, why did you add a NPOV tag? In any event, I requested a citation, but I can tell you, I've already seen this cited several times, so it should be easy to source. If you feel it should be rewritten, then just remove it from the article (since it lacks a source) and place it on the talk page. —Viriditas | Talk 12:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

More personal attacks, great! Now, the reason talk pages have sections is so we can organize relevant talk items together. I put my comment in the relevant section of the talk page. I apologize for saying you were lying, but I this is the thrid time you "incorrectly" say soemthing about me, so its becoming a pattern consistent with willful lying. Now, this is indeed a question of NPOV, not of citation, as per the comment by editor FloNight, please revisit his comment to get illuminated. If you disgaree, then say so, but that means there is indeed an ongoing debate on the neutrality of that inclusion. NPOV specifically warns against needlessly inflmatory representations of fact,even if sourced and verifiable, and we must try to use an original voice whenever possible: Wikipedia is not a crime tabloid.

Hence "heroic" is not NPOV, althought it might well be the fact.

Furthermore, as per Abortion debate compromise, the categorization of a fetus as an unborn child is disputable and not NPOV. This is actually my main issue, if we can reword the line not to include that detail (ie potecting fetus/unborn child - its implied by saying she is pregnant). You see POV has very backhanded ways of entering a debate.--Cerejota 12:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Four words: It's already been removed. —Viriditas | Talk 12:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Terrorist?

It may or may not be appropriate to include a section on whether or not Haq can be considered a terrorist and whether this shooting can be considered a terrorist incident, as some authors have been writing about this. —Viriditas | Talk 11:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3 revert rule

Viriditas, you have violated WP:3RR. Please revert your changes or be reported.--Cerejota 11:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Could you first show me how I violated 3RR? Thanks in advance. —Viriditas | Talk 11:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Gladly: [6] [7] [8]

--Cerejota 12:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Ummm...where's the fourth revert? 3RR states "an editor must not perform more than three reversions" in a 24 hour period. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 12:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

One of the links is for two revisions 3RR states "A revert may involve as little as adding or deleting a few words or even one word. Even if you are making other changes at the same time, continually undoing other editors' work counts as reverting".--Cerejota 12:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Which explains why you reverted five times, two of the three just over the 24 hour mark. Puhlease. —Viriditas | Talk 13:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced text removed

She first covered her stomach with her forearms to protect her unborn child and then, after being shot in the forearm, dialed 911 against the shooter's orders and calmly handed him the phone.^{[citation needed]} Text removed by —Viriditas | Talk 12:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually it is sourced[9] or [10](which is used as a source), but I support the removal on NPOV grounds.--Cerejota 13:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Still current?

Is it time to remove the tag calling this a current event? - Jmabel | Talk 06:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that the tag is used to alert editors to the possibility of high-volume edits (and edit conflicts) during an event that has received recent publicity. Since that is not occurring, I would support the removal of the tag. —Viriditas | Talk 11:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another useful source

For those working on this, another useful source: Josh Feit and Brendan Kiley, Waiting Period: Jewish Federation Shooting Suspect Naveed Haq's Lost Summer, The Stranger, Aug 3 - Aug 9, 2006. - Jmabel | Talk 06:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I've now cited one passage from that. Another source worth a look is Sara Jean Green, Gunman's mother had tried to talk him out of Seattle trip, Seattle Times, July 31, 2006. Basically, it says (among other things) that "His parents… for years had witnessed Haq's struggle with mental illness." Also that they "released a statement Sunday expressing their shock and sorrow over the shootings. "We could not have imagined for a moment that our son would do this senseless act. This is utterly contrary to our beliefs and Islamic values,"… I'm getting that last quotation into the article on Haq himself, but I think there is probably more worth mining. - Jmabel | Talk 06:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Is that a notable source, and are those notable authors? They suggest that the Israel-Lebanon war had something to do with it, but Haq himself has never mentioned it. I'm not sure why we should be quoting them. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

They are, respectively, the leading local weekly (The Stranger) and the leading local daily (The Times). Josh Feit is The Stranger's main political reporter. I couldn't say where the others fit in their respective papers' pecking order, but since it was presumably the biggest local story of the day, it's not exactly the thing you put cub reporters on. Each seems to have managed to get interviews with people close to Haq that the national press did not.

As for the Israel-Lebanon war having something to do with it: I have no personal opinion on that (frankly, my own reading, much like Feit & Kiley's, is that mental illness explains a lot more than politics here) but I've certainly heard the opinion much expressed here (I live in Seattle; on the evening of the shootings, the usual bus stop to get where I was headed that evening was within the closed-off zone around the Federation Building; they were still not sure whether there might be a second shooter.) - Jmabel | Talk 06:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cerejota's heading changes

Cerejota, please stop violating en MoS. This is not es. Furthermore, your argument for changing the headers is not supported by the facts. Please stop edit warring and review WP:MSH. —Viriditas | Talk 08:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

You are the one edit warring, the headers wer ein place for almost a day until you edited them to something else. Stop harrasing me.--Cerejota 08:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, but this has nothing to do with you, and everything to do with your edits. Please cease with your personal attacks, which litter this page and the edit summary. This is the second time you have been warned. Calling Haq a "shooter" in the heading is a violation of NPOV, as he is still alleged at this point. Referring to him by his name is the best policy. —Viriditas | Talk 08:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

What section of WP:MSH am I violating?--Cerejota 08:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

And calling it "site" is way too ambiguous for an English language article. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 06:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The headings are more informative. —Viriditas | Talk 07:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hate crime or terrorism?

Even though I changed the former header, I still dislike this one. Can someone come up with a better heading that does not use a question mark and is short and to the point? I would appreciate it. —Viriditas | Talk 08:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

"Debate on nature of shooting."--Cerejota 08:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

No, see "conciseness" in WP:MSH. —Viriditas | Talk 08:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

"Debate" as consice as it can get.--Cerejota 09:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't even like that section. It just looks like a slab of out-of-context quotes. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 09:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

You're right, of course. Can it be saved through paraphrasing? I didn't write it, but I did sorta request it, above. —Viriditas | Talk 10:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I honestly don't see how anyone could doubt that this was a terrorist act. Please read the definitions of terrorism here in Wikipedia, including the ones taken from dictionaries. Terrorists don't need to be affiliated with groups, and their actions are usually taken against innocents who have no direct connection to whatever issue the terrorist is protesting. Then, learn about Islam's extraordinarlily hostile stance towards Judaism through history. This stance is seen in the Koran, the hadiths, and the actions of Moslems since the beginnings of Islam, starting with the massacre of a tribe of Jews, a massacre that was sanctioned by Mohammed. As for the attacker's mental state, it has virtually no connection to whether or not it was terrorism. Although seemingly random attacks like this appear "crazy" to us, psychologists will tell you that most mentally ill people are not violent, and certainly not at random. The "mental illness" explanation is actually very weak.

I'm happy to discuss it, but I think that those arguing against terrorism need to prove their case, not the other way around. Godfrey Daniel 23:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Speaking as someone in Seattle—the place where this happened—and as a Jew, and as a Wikipedian, I want to argue strenuously against Wikipedia's narrative voice calling this "terrorism". That word figures prominently in Wikipedia:Words to avoid and this is hardly a clear-cut case. Cite someone who calls it that? Fine, along with citing others who disagree. - Jmabel | Talk 06:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

As for "how anyone could doubt that this was a terrorist act": because no one who knew him seems to think that would have been characteristic of him; because he was not a particularly political person; because he appears to have had a lot of mental problems and problems relating to women; and because he just sort of stopped in the middle of it all, which is much more suggestive of a messed-up person acting out—fatally—than of someone with a clear plan and intent. - Jmabel | Talk 06:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal and changes without discussion

1) The headers with the proper name of the shooter and of the site are not WP:MSH complaint, and are ugly and redundant.

2) The sealso on Hate Crime on the "Terrorism or Hate crime?" section has been removed. Why? There is a see also to a page on "Definition of Terrorism" and balance require we also link to Hate crime. I do not understand how there could possibly be any disagreement on this.

3) The jewish federation calls the shooting a hate crime in its website. This is very relevant sourced and verifiable information from a primary source and is being removed for unknown reasons.--Cerejota 02:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Expanding on what I said above, "terrorism" and "hate crime" both presume that we should take Haq to be a genuinely politically motivated person. Interviews with various of his friends (see the Feit and Kiley article referenced above, for example) suggest that he may basically have been an angry, mentally disturbed young man, who put a veneer of politics on a pretty random shooting spree. - Jmabel | Talk 06:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Changing to "Motivation" per Jmabel. I've also moved the see also links inline to avoid duplication. —Viriditas | Talk 19:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Categories

Just curious...Does this article really belong in the "Religiously motivated..." category, and if so, why? Is it because he called himself a muslim? I haven't read anything that he was against Judaism (lived in seattle at the time), and from everything i've read in the article, it seems instead to be an ethnicly motivated (or racist) act. I guess it depends on what precisely he meant by "Jew," whether ethnic or religious or both, but the criminal charges against him, the sourced editorials, and the article itself all seem to argue against using the "religiously motivated..." category. Rather than removing un-categorising it myself, i'd rather first see why people put in that category in the first place. thanks --Chalyres 06:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not think it belongs there; it seems a bit of a stretch (though not an enormous stretch). - Jmabel | Talk 06:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the categorisation, though it can obviously be re-instated. If anyone does change it back, could you also explain why? Thanks. --Chalyres 07:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Spi frontpage cropped 1.jpg

Image:Spi frontpage cropped 1.jpg 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 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 08:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moving article

Does anyone have any objections to removing the "July 2006" from the article? I dont know how many other shootings took place at this location. --Shamir1 00:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Islam and antisemitism?

Can users explain what this article has to do with the topic of "Islam and antisemitism"?Bless sins 01:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The references state he was looking to kill Jews. They also state that he himself admmitted that he did it for the religion of Islam, and because he was doing his duty as a Muslim. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 05:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you point out which references state that "he himself admitted that he did it for the religion of Islam", and which state that "he was doing his duty as a Muslim"? I don't really feel like going through them all to verify this.

Also, even if true regarding those points, I don't think this is the appropriate category to place this article under. If you read the [[Category:Antisemitism]] page it clearly notes that "this category indicates that the article in question discusses or refers to the topic of antisemitism. Adding this category to an article is in no way intended to imply that the subject of the article is antisemitic." The child category, "Islam and antisemitism", would likely derive a similar definition, meaning that it should apply to "articles that discuss or refer to the topic of Islam and antisemitism", which doesn't fit this article as it's not discussing Islam, but one Muslim man. A far more appropriate category would be [[Category:Religiously motivated violence in the United States]]. — George ^[talk] 06:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Prester John, one random Muslim (who converted to Christianity) can't be representative for the Islamic faith.Bless sins 04:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

This is an anti-semitic attack by someone who was motivated by Islamic ideology. How can it *not* be relevant to Islam and anti-semitism? Alexwoods 20:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The fact that he was Muslim does not guarantee that he was "motived by Islamic ideology", and would require sufficient sourcing. Regardless, however, as I started before, the Antisemitism categories are not to be used to label subjects as anti-semitic, which is what many appear to be arguing for in this case, but instead they're used to label articles that discuss antisemitism. ← George ^[talk] 20:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, I put forth the proposal that we replace [[Category:Hate Crime]] and [[Category:Islam and Antisemitism]] with the more specific, more accurate category of [[Category:Religiously motivated violence in the United States]]. ← George ^[talk] 21:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry George, I disagree. First, this:

Klein told the Seattle Post-Intelligencer that Haq "...stated that he was a Muslim, (and) this was his personal statement against Jews and the Bush administration for giving money to Jews, and for us Jews for giving money to Israel, about Hezbollah, the war in Iraq, and he wanted to talk to CNN."

That is anti-semitic, and motivated by Islam. As to your second point, the category contains anti-semitic organizations (Hezbollah, for instance) and anti-semitic events (like the Istanbul bombing). If it didn't, it would be called Islam and Meta-Anti-Semitism. Therefore, the tag should stay, if either of those words mean anything. Alexwoods 21:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The anti-semitic part is self evident, but how does the statement "he was a Muslim" equate to "motivated by Islamic ideology"? Making such a leap is as bad as equating "he was a Jew" to mean "motived by Zionist ideology", or "he was a German" to mean "motivated by Nazi ideology". We don't make such leaps unless we have solid sources that back up such statements. The source you cite explicitly states that this was "his personal statement against Jews", but does not state that he was "motivated by Islam". I had considered proposing that this just be moved to the root [[Category:Antisemitism]] category, but, as I explained earlier, that category has a notice that it was not to be used for scenarios such as this one. ← George ^[talk] 22:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Again there saying "I'm a Muslim" means quite little since he converted to Christianity (evidence of his shaky faith). George has quite correctly argued that he was not motivated by Islamic ideology. But here is my argument: how does this one lunatic represent the Islamic faith? Was he a prominent Islamic scholar or leader? I would agree with you if the shootings were done by a prominent Ayatollah.Bless sins 00:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

George has asked me to comment here. I would reiterate what I said above, and also add that if "Islam and Anti-Semitism" does not include anti-semitic attacks by Muslims, then it is a totally meaningless category. This attack was so clearly motivated by the shooter's understanding of Islam, it strains credulity and my ability to assume good faith on your part to argue otherwise. I could go on and on with respect to specific "arguments" that you guys are making, but I won't, except to say this: Bless sins, your argument that this is not an Islam-related attack because the attacker was not "a prominent Islamic scholar or leader" was the most absurd thing I read all day. Alexwoods 20:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

So, your support for the inclusion of the "Islam and Anti-Semitism" category revolves around a belief that the category should include all "anti-semitic attacks by Muslims". While I disagree, that's a valid argument, and something we can discuss further. I'll probably file a RfC or a 3O on the matter in the coming days. Cheers. ← George ^[talk] 20:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks George. I appreciate the effort to reach consensus here. To clarify slightly, I would say that the category should include, among other things, anti-semitic incidents done by Muslims when the person performing the action is acting in a way that is motivated by his or her Islamic beliefs. I understand that this is contentious to liberal and moderate Muslims who don't believe that Islam requires them to attack Jews, and I guess what we should do is try to fashion a category that is grounded in reality but that doesn't unfairly tarnish Islam (I certainly wouldn't mind a brief discussion of that point in this article, as long as it doesn't veer into OR). Unfortunately it's clear that the incident in question happened as a direct result of the attacker's identification with fundamentalist Islam, so I don't envision this category both bearing some relationship to reality and not including this incident. Alexwoods 21:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

That's fine, and also a valid argument, but one that (unlike the question of including all anti-semitic attacks by Muslims) requires sourcing (that is, that this attack was motivated by the attacker's Islamic beliefs). I'd suggest trying to round up sources that support this statement in the lead up to either a RfC or 3O, as I suspect third party commentators will request them. Cheers. ← George ^[talk] 21:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, it would, however I think that prong is clearly met by the CNN quote in my comment above. That is what distinguishes this incident from a garden-variety altercation, for instance over a parking spot, that happened to occur between a Muslim and a Jew. It is absolutely clear from the text of the article and the links there that he was motivated, by his understanding of Islam, to perpetrate this attack on Jews. He didn't go in there and say "this is a robbery" (not anti-semitic), nor did he say "I'm going to shoot you Jews because of what you did to the Croats," e.g. He said, to paraphrase, I am a Muslim (note that I am not asserting that he was a real Muslim or a good Muslim, only that he plausibly self-identified as such) and I am going to kill you Jews for what you have done to other Muslims in other parts of the world. That's the logic, and I don't see how it could possibly follow that this incident does not qualify for inclusion in the category. Alexwoods 21:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

No worries, it was just a suggestion, and the sources you cite are, of course, entirely up to you. Worth noting that my paraphrasing of the quote would be a bit different though. I would paraphrase the quote something like: "I'm a Muslim, I don't like Jews, I don't like Bush for helping Jews, and I don't like Jews for helping Israel. I'm a supporter of Hezbollah, and opposed to the war in Iraq." None of that inherently implies a motivation founded in religious beliefs to me, as it seems entirely possible that a someone, regardless of their race or religion, could hate Jews, Israel, and Bush for racist reasons, while opposing the war in Iraq and support Hezbollah for political reasons, but obviously that is the crux of our disagreement. Anywho, hopefully the non-constructive revert warring (by everyone) stays to a minimum until we get the issue resolved. Cheers. ← George ^[talk] 21:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Alexwoods, I don't understand why you think my argument is "absurd". Since when is a lunatic's interpretation of Islam an authentic one? Furthermore, there is evidence that he had converted to Christianity before this shooting.[11] I'm not sure if he ever converted back.Bless sins 21:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The seventh paragraph of that article reads: "Yet in the midst of his shooting spree in Seattle Friday, he declared himself an angry Muslim." --Sefringle^Talk 23:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

And as has been discussed here, ad nauseum, being a Muslim does not necessarily mean that Islam is your motivation for committing a crime. ← George ^[talk] 01:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

That was, however, his arguement for committing the crime. He was an angry muslim, angry at the jews. Sefringle^Talk 01:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but he didn't say "I'm doing this for Islam", or because "I'm motivated by Islam", he stated that he did it because he hated Jews. Was it an antisemitic attack? Absolutely. Is there proof that he was motivated by Islam. No, and to claim such, unsourced, falls into the category of original research. ← George ^[talk] 02:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

This article says he was shouting "I'm a Muslim American; I'm angry at Israel." (sourced to Gilbert, Greg. "Haq allegedly shot woman, then chased her up stairs, killed her.", The Seattle Times, 2006-08-03, p. A1). That alone shows that Islam played a definite part in his mothvations (in other words, he says he killed jews because he hates Israel, because he is muslim). Thus he is antisemitic because he is muslim by his own confession. Sefringle^Talk 02:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

And if he had been shouting "I'm a German who hates Jews" then what, he would have been motivated by Nazism?? If the roles were reversed, and a Jewish man ran into a Muslim center and killed a bunch of people stating "I am a Jew who hates Muslims", would you categorize the page as "Judaism and intolerance of Muslims"?? I certainly wouldn't. We need sources, not assumptions and personal interpretations. ← George ^[talk] 02:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Islam and antisemitism" categorization

This is a discussion of whether or not this article should be included in Category:Islam and antisemitism.

[edit] Discussion

I'd like to start off the discussion by reiterating my stance. I think that it is inappropriate to categorize this article as Category:Islam and antisemitism due to the following reasoning:

• The man who committed the murders "...stated that he was a Muslim, (and) this was his personal statement against Jews and the Bush administration for giving money to Jews, and for us Jews for giving money to Israel, about Hezbollah, the war in Iraq, and he wanted to talk to CNN."
• Being a Muslim and hating Jews does not inherently guarantee being motivated by Islam or Islamic ideologies. A Muslim can be antisemitic for racist reasons, or political reasons, or personal reasons, unrelated to their faith.
• The man, in the quote above, cited both racist and political motivations, but never mentioned being motivated by Islam. Also, he was confirmed to be suffering from bipolar disorder.
• There is also some question if the murderer was actually Muslim (or, at least, a devout Muslim), as he was baptized Christian in December 2005.
• Category:Antisemitism, the parent category for Category:Islam and antisemitism, carries a specific notice at the top: This category indicates that the article in question discusses or refers to the topic of antisemitism. Adding this category to an article is in no way intended to imply that the subject of the article is antisemitic. I believe we can extrapolate a similar intention for the Category:Islam and antisemitism, which would mean that articles in that category would "discuss or refer to the topic of Islam and antisemitism". This article does not do that.

I propose we recategorize this article as the more appropriate, less contentious Category:Religiously motivated violence in the United States. ← George ^[talk] 09:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

If this man was upset because of Israel, Hezbollah and the war in Iraq, wouldn't it be politically motivated violence? Please note, that in the west the term "Muslim" (after 9/11) carries a lot of political weight as well.Bless sins 13:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

It might be, but he made it quite clear that it was Jews he hated, and that is anti-semitism, not anti-Zionism. Alexwoods 03:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it's very telling that you want to recategorize as "religiously motivated". What religion motivated him? Islam, right? You also seem to acknowledge that he committed the act because he hated Jews. The big word for hating Jews is antisemitism, right? Let's keep the tag. It's accurate. Alexwoods 03:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The above are very good points. There is another point:

• Should one non-significant member of a group (consisting of more than a billion members) be considered representative of the entire group? Thus if a non-significant Christian (like not a priest or cleric) blows up an abortion clinic, should the incident be categorized as "Christianity and murder"?Bless sins 13:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

First, I would like to point out that virtually all your edits are to suppress information that you consider defamatory to Islam. You are not neutral in this debate and I think you should recuse yourself from it for fairness's sake. Second, when can we ever say that any action taken by any individual represents any ideological system that is as vast and as varied as Islam? It's impossible! Taking Catholicism as an example, maybe we could say that an action by the Pope, who is the generally acknowledged leader of Catholics worldwide, would be "representative" of Catholicism, but even then many individual Catholics might disagree. I argue that Islam in this category means "motivated by Islam", not "representative of Islam" because the latter would be totally subjective and therefore totally meaningless, whereas the former clearly applies to this case because the actor self-identified as a Muslim before committing the act. And, to answer your question, I would say that abortion clinic bombings would qualify for a category such as Christianity and Terrorism (or some such). I'd also like to point out that the logic of your argument would prevent you agreeing to George's good faith suggestion that we switch for Category:Religiously motivated violence in the United States. How can we say that his action is representative of religion? Really, the article belongs in both categories. Alexwoods 03:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• I agree. A Catholic, who on an insane urge, kills his family to honor God, is not representative of Catholics or Catholicism. The ONLY way this should be categorized this way, is if it can be verified and reliably sourced from a really excellent source. Then it can be done. Otherwise this is not good categorization. Neither would it be right to call it religiously motivated unless that can be verified and sourced. Incidentally WP:BLP may apply. --Blue Tie 01:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

These are really good points. We should probably try to find sources to support whatever category we support including. ← George ^[talk] 05:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• RFC response - Tough call; in the present category, it makes it sound like Islam endorses this act, and is a bit of an afront to Muslims. I know that if I were Muslim, I would probably dispute this. So I lean to no; I suggest a subcategory: Category:Antisemitic acts by Muslims. The Evil Spartan 23:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that that would be a valid solution as well. ← George ^[talk] 01:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't, although I appreciate the effort to compromise. I am still holding out hope of bringing you around, George. You realize that the newly proposed category admits that the actor was a Muslim (this has been denied, but maybe not by you) and that the act was anti-Semitic? It seems that your previous objections would still stand. The new category would be an improvement on the technically correct but unnecessarily vague Religiously Motivated Violence, but I still think that Islam and Antisemitism should apply, and incidentally that Muslims should be offended by the act of murder itself, rather than the association with their religion. (also, thanks ES for the copyedit - I was asleep when I wrote that) Alexwoods 01:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I think my biggest issue with using the Category:Islam and antisemitism is the labelling of an individual as indicative of their religion. I have to ask myself whether I would label an attack against Jews by an individual, self-professed Christian member of the Klu Klux Klan as Category:Christianity and antisemitism, and the answer I come up with is no, for the exact same reason. If I had chosen to apply it in one case and not the other, I would be letting my personal bias enter into my thinking. ← George ^[talk] 01:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The major problem is that a person's motivation is very difficult to assertian. We can only speculate as to why. Only the person themselves can prove the fact, so unless the person has made a statement to such, it remains mere speculation. --Neon white 00:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

He did make a statement. Alexwoods 00:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Another issue here is if Naveed Afzal Haq was a Muslim. He seems to have converted to Christianity (though I'm in no way blaming Christianity, a faith that attracts all sorts of people, for the shooting) at one point. Are there any sources clearly establishing his conversion back to Islam?Bless sins 18:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

• RFC response Greetings, still open for comment? I was going to suggest that the proposed categorization would need to be backed up by some pretty good quality source(s). (E.g., not a blogger's or columnist's rant). I see that I am basically seconding the opinion of Blue Tie, above. Specifically, not all anti-Semitic hate crimes by Muslims would be representative of Islam. Nor vice-versa with Jewish hate crimes. However, it may be that an act gets adopted/applauded by a small yet notable segment of the affiliated religious community, as happened with Baruch Goldstein. Conversely, a hate crime may also result in noteworthy reconciliation efforts, as might have happened with Seattle and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (if it's notable). If so, the category could be suitable for the category Category:Islam and antisemitism were the main article Islam and anti-Semitism to include reconciliation work, as does its Christian counter-part. But that article does not seem to refer to contemporary Muslim efforts against anti-Semitism. (Perhaps the main article will come to include Muslim reconciliation efforts. If you do add the article to the category due to an ensuing reaction that denounced anti-Semitism by Muslims, then it may be helpful to cite this incident, even as a footnote, in the main article.) Let me know if you find this helpful, thanks! HG | Talk 07:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, your comment was helpful. Yeah I guess this article could potentially be included in the category not for the actions of al-Haq but for the actions of CAIR. This inclusion would be similar to the inclusion of Bernard Lewis (who is only a scholar on the issue). But that should be made clear in both this article and Islam and antisemitism. However, I don't see the CAIR saying that this act is against Islamic beliefs. In fact, they don't mention Islam at all. Add this to the confusion over whether al-Haq was a Muslim or not.Bless sins 02:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• RFC Response There are at least two sources stating that he self-identified as Muslim during the crime, although they both rely on leaks of the 911 tapes. In the absence of contrary evidence to his self identification at the time, we can rely upon those sources. I see that the defining criteria for inclusion in Category:Islam and antisemitism is "articles that relate to the interaction or intersection of the phenomena that comprise Antisemitism and the religion of Islam. No more, no less." So, he identifies as Muslim, that meets the Islam prong of the test. The attack was obviously antisemetic, both tests are met. The category under discussion should be used, not the more general parent Category:Antisemitism. As an additional note, Category:Religiously motivated violence in the United States may be an appropriate additional category, but can't be a replacement, as to use it we have to have sourcing that the shooter's religion motivated him, whereas to use I&A we only need to have sourcing that he identified as a Muslim. GRBerry 04:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• RFC Response Firstly, someone who "stated that he was a Muslim, (and) this was his personal statement against Jews" is tying his act to his religion. Secondly, as mentioned above, the category in question is defined by "articles that relate to the interaction or intersection of the phenomena that comprise Antisemitism and the religion of Islam." This article intersects bith Antisemitism and Islam. -- Avi 04:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

• Then perhaps we should have a category "Judaism and murder" where any Jew who happens to have committed a murder should be listed? Or we should the list Ku Klux Klan as an example of "Christianity and racism"? Ofcourse that would be ridiculous since Judaism and Christianity like other religions (including Islam) is not defined by what fringe elements do. Infact, what is far more notable is the role of CAIR (which represents thousands of mainstream Muslims), yet all choose to ignore it since it doesn't vilify Islam. If this act is endorsed by certain Islamic religious authorities then there would be reason to believe Islam was involved. Bless sins 04:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

For the KKK example, we don't have categories for X and racism. what is far more notable is the role of CAIR (which represents thousands of mainstream Muslims), yet all choose to ignore it since it doesn't vilify Islam. No, their opinion is not "far more notable." The news in general focuses on the negative because it is more intresting. Few would watch the news if they presented just the positives. So these so-called "fringe elements" are more notable because they are more intresting, and thus get more media attention. Second not all choose to ignore CAIR's opinion. But their opinion is not as notable becasue not as many reliable sources have metnioned it. If this act is endorsed by certain Islamic religious authorities then there would be reason to believe Islam was involved. And that leaves defining "certain Islamic religious authorities" as a problem. If the criminal says Islam was his motivation for his crime, Islam is involved. Yahel Guhan 05:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

"If the criminal says Islam was his motivation for his crime, Islam is involved." If a criminal/non-criminal says Judaism was involved in the 9/11 attacks, then Judaism was involved in the 9/11 attacks?Bless sins 01:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The 9-11 terrorists were muslims, and said they were motivated by Islam, not judaism. Yahel Guhan 01:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

That does not make any sense. The facts remain, He declared himself a Muslim, he killed because his target was a Jew. This is hardly an unusual in today's world. Let's call it as it is. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 01:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I partially agree with Prester John here. Categorizing things is a difficult and imperfect art - consider the difficulties scientists have classifying species! In the case of "Islam and Antisemitism" being a member of the category only entails that the subject of the article has a connection to both terms, which is undeniable. The link is potentially useful to readers so I think it should be kept. The category "religiously motivated violence..." is more problematic because membership requires a judgment that the incident was religiously motivated, when Haq's motives were almost certainly more complicated. Including this article in the category would be an oversimplification, but I think one could make a strong case that the world does not break down into perfect categories and any encyclopedia categorization scheme that doesn't allow some flexibility is going to be pretty useless. We aren't making something up like adding "Converts to Islam" on the Naveed Afzal Haq article, we're just applying a legitimate, if disputable interpretation. In the end I think the judgment should be based on usefulness and the cat would be helpful to readers. Its slightly OR, but I think categorization requires judgment calls. GabrielF 03:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

FYI. In line with my comments above, I added a brief section to Islam and anti-Semitism about reconciliation efforts. Since I'd also affirm the latter part of Avi's comment, I'm now more inclined to think that the categorization is appropriate. Good luck. HG | Talk 04:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I guess the consensus is against me, so I'll have to concede. But you've set a very dangerous precedent here. As I understand it, Islam is being dragged into this simply because the perpertrator was a Muslim?

The question is everytime a Christian (whether religious or not) murders someone should it be categorized as "Christianity and murder"? Or every time a Christian sexually abuses someone, should it be categorized as "Christianity and sexual abuse"?Bless sins 05:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the precedent might be relevant depending on how you circumscribe it. The "XYZ and murder" analogy seems to broad. But consider these (Heaven forbid): if a self-avowed Christian bombs an abortion clinic, and if it's a sufficiently notable incident, then couldn't it be classified under Religion and abortion? Or if a self-avowed Christian attacks a gay bar, and if it's a sufficiently noteworthy to have its own article, then couldn't it be classified under Christianity and homosexuality? And what if Christian groups go out of their way to denounce such acts? HG | Talk 06:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

It could be classified as such, but it would certainly not be appropriate - unless this Christian represented a mainstream sect of Christianity. The "XYZ and murder" might seem too broad, but it is the only logical conclusion. When one person becomes representative of 1.2 billion people, all hell breaks loose.Bless sins 07:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I think thats a bit of a straw man Bless sins. Haq wasn't a murderer who just happened to be Muslim, he personally connected the topic of Islam and Antisemitism to the incident by saying "I'm a Muslim American angry at Israel.", ranting about Jews controlling the government, etc. As for the issue of a Christian sexually abusing someone, there's nothing in your hypothetical that connects the person to the topic of Christianity and sexual abuse, but if it was a priest, say, it would be appropriate to include the category of Sexual Abuse and the Priesthood or something similar. GabrielF 08:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

He certainly was simply a man who happened to be a Muslim. Sources show that he was far from being a devoted Muslim, and indulged in un-Islamic activities. He was not at all a respected member of the Muslim community. If a priest/minister (who can be considered a representative of his church) commits sexual abuse, why will the blame go on "Priesthood" and not "Christianity"? After all Islam is being blamed for the actions of Naveed Haq. There is absolutely nothing (atleast nothing has been presented so far) that connects this man with Islam except that he was a Muslim.Bless sins 11:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Membership in a category doesn't imply "blame", it just implies a connection between the subject of the article and the category. Adding in blame is your interpretation. GabrielF 16:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok so it implies connection. And since there is obviously some "connection" between a Christian and Christianity, all notable sexual abuses committed by Christians should be categorized as "Christianity and sexual abuse". Am I right?Bless sins 17:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Spi frontpage cropped 1.jpg

Image:Spi frontpage cropped 1.jpg 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 19:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Motivation

Firstly Yahel I urge you to not simply repeat material in the article to make a point. Secondly, reliable sources say "Haq is not a jihadi, nor a radical Islamist" indicating he was not motivated by religious ideologies.Bless sins (talk) 04:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

He stated he did what he did because he is a "muslim." Therefore he self-admits to being motivated by Islam. Of corse, you removed those detials, because it proves your whole arguement wrong. Yahel Guhan 04:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

He didn't say he was doing it because Islam told him to do so. Besides he also said that Jews were pushing Muslims around. DO you agree with that statement? Since when is Haq a reliable source?Bless sins (talk) 04:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Haq is a reliable source for his own actions, especially when reported in other reliable sources (newspapers). Yahel Guhan 04:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Haq's comments are primary sources and can only be stated (and summarized). They can't be interpreted.Bless sins (talk) 04:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

They are quoted in secondary sources, which do interprit his comments. Yahel Guhan 05:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes the secondary sources interpret and come to the conclusion that he was not motivated by Islam (since jihad is an Islamic concept and Islamism is an ideology that has its roots in Islam).Bless sins (talk) 05:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

No. The secondary sources conclude he was not a jihadi (meaning not following all of the same rituals most jihadis would follow). That doesn't mean he wasn't motivated by jihad. Yahel Guhan 05:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It means the same thing. Ofcourse the jihadis (or those who practice jihad) are motivated by it (or some sort of correct or twisted interpretation of it). It's implied in the world itself.Bless sins (talk) 05:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yawn. No, it doesn't imply that. Yahel Guhan 05:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Whatever. Go look at the dictionary if you don't believe me. I've already provided you with reliable secondary source, while you have done no such thing.Bless sins (talk) 05:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Haq's words is a reliable source for Haq's opinions. Yahel Guhan 05:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

<reset> You can't interpret them any way you like. We go along with reliable sources, that are much clearer on the issue.Bless sins (talk) 14:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

BTW, a reliable source is saying that he was not motivated by religion. Why are you ignoring that.Bless sins (talk) 04:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The source says he was not a jihadi, not that he wasn't motivated in some way, shape, or form by islam. Big difference. Yahel Guhan 04:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I indeed agree that it makes a big difference if he wasn't motivated by Islam. Glad to be in agreement with you.Bless sins (talk) 04:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)