Talk:2015 Chattanooga shootings

Added "See also" section

I added a "See also" section to this article for cross-referencing between similar attacks. I also added this incident to the "See also" section in the Curtis Culwell Center attack article. So let the flurry of editing begin... grifterlake (talk) 20:24, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

The previous discussion is still collapsed below, but I think there needs to be clarification on what belongs in the "See also" section. When I created it I only listed the Curtis Culwell Center attack, knowing that others would add to it. Since then it has been removed, resurrected, populated and contents changed. I'd like to see some consensus on what should belong on that list. My perspective was domestic terrorism as the anchor. Others, just as validly removed the OKC bombing and changed it so that it reflected only terrorist attacks with guns. As it currently is written, it includes the second, 2014 Fort Hood shooting which is not terrorism-related at all, which makes it the odd man out in the list. There are a number of ways this section can be populated--domestic terrorism, Islamic terrorism, gun attacks, all terrorism, etc, but I think there should be some consensus on what belongs there. But no matter how we dice it, the second Fort Hood shooting really has no place on the list unless the list is only attacks of all types on military installations. grifterlake (talk) 01:10, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Off-topic debate

Why? Was it confirmed that he was islamist? or even muslim? Kinda jumping the gun... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.30.12.130 (talk) 20:26, 16 July 2015 (UTC) The shooter's name is Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez, so I'd say it's not a case of jumping the gun, although you could say with slightly more accuracy that it is a case of drawing conclusions from the smoking gun before the data from the ballistic and forensic evidence comes back. grifterlake (talk) 20:31, 16 July 2015 (UTC) Terrible source for that piece of information. A Heavy.com article linking to a tweet that "says" CBS identified, but with no actual link to CBS and no actual posts on CBS or other reputable sites. Basically, you've copied from a journalistic equivalent of "a friend of a friend of a friend told me". And from that you've extrapolated what "similar" attacks look like? Don't get me wrong. If this individual is indeed the perpetrator, yeah it would make sense to link to other incidents of homegrown terror attacks, but since we cannot objectively verify the perpetrator at this point in time, you might as well have linked to the Oklahoma City Bombings for a "similar" attack. 2601:14A:100:700:C5B7:EDE7:B41A:28E2 (talk) 20:32, 16 July 2015 (UTC) Correction, CNN just confirmed the name, but the motive cannot be objectively derived from just a name, so you should wait on that. 2601:14A:100:700:C5B7:EDE7:B41A:28E2 (talk) 20:35, 16 July 2015 (UTC) A "[t]errible source"? It was an AP article stating that in addition to being "born in Kuwait", it also states that "A U.S. official says the gunman in the shootings in Tennessee has been identified as 24-year-old Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez." grifterlake (talk) 20:42, 16 July 2015 (UTC) The AP article wasn't there when you posted your initial conjecture. And as I said, the name may be confirmed, but the motive is not. The only thing we know for sure about the motive is that the target was the military. Anything else at this point, regardless of how likely it may seem, is purely conjecture at this point and not worthy of mention in a wikipedia article until it is confirmed from an official source. 2601:14A:100:700:C5B7:EDE7:B41A:28E2 (talk) 20:51, 16 July 2015 (UTC) How is it "conjecture" to include this incident with other acts of domestic terrorism when officials have already referred to this as an act of domestic terrorism? The probable Muslim/Islamist connection would be "pure conjecture", but it has already been declared to be domestic terrorism. Both the Washington Navy Yard shooting and the Curtis Culwell Center Attack should be restored, and the Oklahoma City bombing should also be added. There is no need for motive to be established for inclusion in a "See also" section that is currently limited to showing other acts of domestic terrorism that have occurred in the United States. grifterlake (talk) 20:57, 16 July 2015 (UTC) How is it terrorism exactly if soldiers were targeted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.74.202.58 (talk) 21:05, 16 July 2015 (UTC) Terrorism doesn't exclusively mean targeting civilians. The Beirut Barracks bombing was an act of terrorism, as were the USS Cole attacks and the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon. 2601:14A:100:700:C5B7:EDE7:B41A:28E2 (talk) 21:11, 16 July 2015 (UTC) Care to back that up somehow? Under what definition are you operating? Are you saying Fort Hood was terrorism as well? It's terrorism because it was perpetrated by an individual or group, not by a nation or people wearing uniforms or other identifying insignia that identifies it with a nation, as required by the Geneva Conventions. grifterlake (talk) 21:13, 16 July 2015 (UTC) So how come random homicides aren't all called terrorism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.30.12.130 (talk) 21:14, 16 July 2015 (UTC) Random homicides aren't considered terrorism because they aren't rooted in a political motive, as is terrorism. There are also types, or clades of terrorism. Klan violence is a type of terrorism, but not relevant to the type that is the probable motive we see here. grifterlake (talk) 21:25, 16 July 2015 (UTC) Just so you know, you're completely making up your own definition of 'terrorism' so as to exclude Western terror. There is no remotely defensible definition of 'terrorism' whereby targeting non-civilians would qualify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.74.202.58 (talk) 21:17, 16 July 2015 (UTC) Since you have not included any examples of what you consider to be "Western terror" we may never know what you mean by that. The Basque separatists could be considered examples of "Western terror". The violence between Catholics and Protestants in Ireland could also be considered examples of "Western terror". What can't be considered examples of "Western terror" would be military operations conducted by the United States or other nation states, regardless of their motives or intent. grifterlake (talk) 21:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC) "What can't be considered examples of "Western terror" would be military operations conducted by the United States or other nation states, regardless of their motives or intent." That is completely, utterly wrong. Wearing a uniform in no way precludes terrorism. Look up 'state terrorism'. Under your definition, a soldier could never commit terrorism no matter how many civilians she kills for political ends, and an individual can commit terrorism no matter how carefully she avoids harming civilians. Well...yes, that is true. A soldier, by definition is wearing a uniform which puts those acts in the category of "warfare". If that soldier, she or he removes that uniform and commits the same acts it would be called terrorism. And under the Geneva Conventions that "soldier" would then be considered an illegal combatant, i.e. a terrorist, or possibly a spy, depending on what he/she was doing. grifterlake (talk) 21:44, 16 July 2015 (UTC) You keep asserting this peculiar rule with only vague references to the Geneva Conventions, but it is not accepted by any credible source on terrorism, which is usually defined as the use of terror or violence against civilians for ideological reasons, and most certainly includes when the U.S. bombs weddings (by the FBI's own standards). You've given no valid basis for calling the Fort Hood attack terrorism. You're manipulating the term in exactly the way experts like Lisa Stampnitzky have analyzed at length. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.236.81.183 (talk) 22:35, 16 July 2015 (UTC) Kindly read this for a succinct, directly on-point treatment of the issues raised herein: https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/06/19/refusal-call-charleston-shootings-terrorism-shows-meaningless-propaganda-term/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.236.81.183 (talk) 22:43, 16 July 2015 (UTC) I reference the Geneva Conventions for good reason; they are the generally accepted standards by which war is legitimately or illegitimately waged by its signatories. If the United States "bombs weddings", the Geneva Conventions have mechanisms that allow us to establish whether or not they were legal or illegal, and proscribes penalties in the case of the latter but they are not "terrorism" because they are being conducted by a recognized nation. Likewise, the same Geneva Conventions defines what constitutes both legal and illegal combatants. The Sandanistas engaged in terrorism right up to the point where they became the legitimate ruling government of Nicaragua. Then they were waging war, and we can debate whether or not it was being waged legitimately. The 2009 Fort Hood attack can be labeled terrorism because of the words used by the perpetrator. He said he was waging jihad and described himself as a soldier of Allah. On the other hand, the 2014 shooting attacks on Fort Hood by Ivan Lopez were not terrorism because his act traced back to financial motives and psychological issues. grifterlake (talk) 23:16, 16 July 2015 (UTC) You're operating under a number of patently false assumptions. The Geneva Conventions do not define terrorism and do certainly not preclude state terrorism, neither do they define clear and comprehensive penalties designated solely for terrorists. A war crime under the Geneva Convetions and terrorism are not mutually exclusive. You seem to suggest there is some settled definition which the US government and media establishments can be relied upon to consistently apply, which is the opposite of the truth as established in the link. Defining terrorism by the actor and not the act is the textbook propagandistic application of the term. Absolutely no credible authority on terrorism accepts your purported standard by which any act done by a soldier or state, no matter how terroristic, cannot constitute terrorism. You are essentially regurgitating the US government's widely criticized, deeply propagandistic application of the term which by definition excludes its own violence, whether it be bombing weddings or shooting journalists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.101.189.59 (talk) 23:35, 16 July 2015 (UTC) I think both the provided link and the reference to Lisa Stampnitzky are telling in that they are agenda-laden and academic definitions that are designed to pursue a specific ideological end. The Geneva Conventions, on the other hand are comprised of what strives to be legal definitions in the pursuit of clarity. They define terms and then use those definitions to extrapolate both actions and consequences for behavior. And yes, in the broad sense I am defining terrorism by the actor and not the act. But more specifically I am defining it by the context of both the actor and the act, and my reasoning can be easily demonstrated with a simple example: "A man is shot and killed by another man". What is not arguable is that a homicide occurred. What is arguable is whether or not a murder occurred. If the man was shot by a man intending to rob him, then the actor is a criminal and therefore a murderer. If the man was shot by a police officer while robbing a bank and pointing a gun at someone else, then the actor is neither a criminal nor a murderer. The simple facts of the act, "A man is shot and killed by another man" are the same in both circumstances. But in one case the act is justified, in the other it is not. Context matters. And my using sources such as the Geneva Conventions go a lot further in establishing that context than an opinion piece on firstlook.org or an academic with an agenda such as Lisa Stampnitzky. grifterlake (talk) 00:01, 17 July 2015 (UTC) Again, the Geneva Conventions do not define terrorism. Uncritically accepting the incredibly self-serving application of the term as used by your government is pretty clearly more agenda-driven than Stampnitzky's objective historical analysis. Your criminal law analogy actually works against your position because it is dependent on intentions, which you say are irrelevant if the actor wears a uniform. Cops can commit murder under the law depending on the act (not the actor). What you call "context" is a totally amorphous license to couch violence done to us - regardless of whether civilians are targeted (this is where you depart from virtually all conventional wisdom) - as terrorism and simultaneously legitimize any violence we do, no matter how terroristic, e.g., bombing weddings and aid workers and shooting journalists. This is wholly consistent with how the term has historically been used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.101.189.59 (talk) 00:10, 17 July 2015 (UTC) Correct. The Geneva Conventions do not define terrorism, which is a very fluid term. But they do define legal and not legal, both behaviors and actors and we can then reasonably extrapolate a meaningful definition of terrorism from those definitions. Editorials and agendas like those of Stampnitzky do not give us that opportunity; they only opinions that give people a way to affirm or not affirm their own opinions. From the perspective of a fundamentalist Muslim they could never engage in terrorism no matter what they did because it would be in the service of Allah and jihad. But the vast majority of the world lives and operates under a mutually accepted set of rules, and though we may disagree on whether the rules have been broken, we usually don't debate the nature of those rules. grifterlake (talk) 01:05, 17 July 2015 (UTC) We're getting closer to the core of your view. Your dismissal of the academic works of Stampnitzky and the Pulitzer-winning journalism of Greenwald - without any substantive response to their points - serves to reveal your own ideological leanings. The Geneva Conventions are actually one of the most important points of reference in the discussion of state terror, which makes your reliance on them strange; they in no way, shape, or form support the proposition that state actors cannot engage in terrorism by definition. On the contrary, they provide some of the most useful guidelines in identifying state terror, yet you choose to try to reference them in order to somehow define state terror out of existence, thereby categorically legitimizing state violence above terrorism. Your repeated references to Allah and what you call fundamentalist Muslims give additional insight into your application of 'terrorism'. You have come very close to the functional definition of terrorism in the American establishment, which is any violence done by Muslims (regardless of whether civilians are targeted, contrary to the ostensible leading definition of terrorism) and excludes any violence done by your state, no matter how terroristic, how direct the targeting of civilians, or how bad the intentions. This was actually a useful illustration of propaganda terminology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.101.189.59 (talk) 01:32, 17 July 2015 (UTC) Actually, it serves to reveal my methodological leanings, which tend toward the legalistic vs. the opinionated. For every opinion source to which you can refer, I can do the same. The same can't be said for you when it comes to legalistic sources. But what or what does not constitute terrorism is being rendered moot by information now coming out about the shooter, Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez and his motivations, and specifically from his own blog. Whichever way this conversation has tended over the last several hours, evidence has now decidedly rested on the probability that this is terrorism, and that terrorism is rooted in Abdulazeez's religious beliefs. grifterlake (talk) 02:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC) You're defining terrorism by the actor and not the act, which is precisely its most propagandistic use. I would strongly urge that we limit the "see also" section to immediately related articles that somehow cannot be placed directly in the article. Otherwise, we have a nearly unlimited number of tangentially related articles. If news sources dont mention a similarity to another event, we really shouldnt have it in the see also section. a link to broader articles is usually the best type, such as an article on attacks on US military facilities (a list article perhaps), or history of the state or county or city. if we link to articles on specific incidents, where do we draw the line? how about the attack on the us compounds overseas, those are similar in some ways too. or links to articles on other Kuwaiti people, thats sort of related. "See also" gets horribly abused on WP, and is a way to add editorial content to articles without providing references to back it up. similar to adding categories that are not patently obvious from the article itself. also, links in see also which assume facts about the shooter that are not based on sources in the article is another form of BLP source rule violation. see also: charles manson, joseph stalin, chairman mao, john lennon, jesus christ: werent they all controversial to somebody?(mercurywoodrose)50.193.19.66 (talk) 22:47, 16 July 2015 (UTC) In general, I have no problem with this. I included several shootings, in addition to the Oklahoma City bombing because I was looking at it from the perspective of including acts of domestic terrorism. Someone else deleted the OKC bombing reference because it was a bombing, and therefor dissimilar to the others, which were all shootings. A valid point, albeit from a different perspective than that which was held by me when I included it. Someone else could jump in and delete the Curtis Culwell Center attack from the list because they are looking at it from the perspective of including only attacks on military sites. Also a valid, but different perspective. And then another person could restore all the attacks I included, and then add the 9/11 attacks and the anthrax attacks which followed because they viewed domestic terrorism more broadly than did I, which was limited to conventional types of weapons such as guns and explosives, not planes and biological weapons. grifterlake (talk) 23:38, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

This is terrorism!

I wouldn't rush to label this as terrorism unless it is concluded as such. What we currently know is that the attack is being investigated as terrorism but unless they say "yeah okay" we cant and shouldn't cast this verdit. I would expect the cause or motive to come out fairly soon, so no hurt in waiting. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:58, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Judging by the response to the Parliament Hill shootings, I wouldn't be surprised by gov't calling it "terrorism" for political gain... IMO, WP can safely wait until things calm down; we're not a blog. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:16, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I think your intentions are good, but misplaced. If the shooter had only attacked one military site you could claim we should wait until a motive was established. But he attacked two military sites, which makes it political, i.e. terrorism. Had the motive of the perpetrators of the curtis Culwell Center attack not been established so quickly (by their social media activity) I would agree that waiting would have been in order there. That's why I started a "See also" section early on. The targets in today's attacks were both military installations. If by saying that we should wait until "they say 'yeah okay'" how long would it have taken before a Wikipedia article could label the 2009 Fort Hood shooting by Nidal Malik Hasan an act of domestic terrorism which was labeled an act of workplace violence for many years? A reasonable person standard is a more logical approach in this case rather than an official government decree. To me, the question of what should be included in a "See also" section is whether or not to limit the list to Islamic terrorism (in which case I would agree that we should wait for a motive), or to include all acts of domestic terrorism, including the 2009 Fort Hood shooting, Oklahoma City bombing, the Washington Navy Yard shooting and the Curtis Culwell Center attack. All are clearly domestic terrorism by any reasonable person standard, which is why the "See also" section keeps popping back up and changing after being deleted. grifterlake (talk) 22:19, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Again I don't see the harm in waiting, the worst thing we can do is label this as terrorism have other media follow what Wikipedia says and have this be a case of a disgruntled man that did a revenge killing. No terror groups have been linked, and the terrorism angle is being investigated. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:28, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

True, there is no harm in waiting. But neither would their be any harm in a 24 hour hold before starting a current event article so as to hit the ground running with a stronger informational base. Over the next several days and weeks this article will undergo dramatic changes, and may end up bearing little resemblance to what it looked like an hour ago. As for myself, I like watching articles begin and evolve on Wikipedia. I'm fascinated by the organic process in their development and would be thrilled if Wikipedia developed an animation that allows the user to input a time--in seconds, minutes or even hours that shows the text of the article from a blank page to its current form. It would almost be like watching the birth and formation of a solar system as it begins and section headings appear and are filled with information. grifterlake (talk) 22:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you that this is most likely domestic terrorism, after watching the news though officials are telling people not to be so quick to judge. I am sure this article will change and also agree it is a very cool process to see. I would not be opposed to changing the status if/when it is being widely reported as such by WP:RS (Title headers alone don't count). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:48, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

IMO, there's a difference btw a lone nutjob & a terrorist. The U.S. seems to default to terrorism... WP need not. If it is, it'll turn up. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:02, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Seems it is initially being called domestic terrorism. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-33562479 Heyyouoverthere (talk) 06:04, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

It is being investigated as such yes. This morning I tuned into CNN and they are saying investigators still have not come up with a motive. Nothing is coming up in this guy's background that would suggest he would do something like this ect... In short, authorities here are puzzled it seems. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:21, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I wish they'd phrase these things in a way that doesn't confuse people. Investigating something "as" something doesn't mean the thing "was" something. That's what the investigation is meant to find out. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:25, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

It's a bit like investigating suicide. AIUI, it's treated as homicide (perhaps not everywhere...) until demonstrated otherwise. I expect the Bureau defaults to presuming terrorism, now. That doesn't mean it's been established. (CNN saying it doesn't, either.) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 18:44, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Not CNN, other media, politicians, pundits or anonymous "official"s. Criminal investigations are highly suited for criminal investigators. We should defer to their judgment, even if that takes longer than the urge to call something terrifying terrorism for terrible reasons lasts. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:01, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

No source, no inclusion... 65.88.88.203 (talk) 20:04, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

It is decades after the Beirut marine barracks attacks and it is labeled neither a terrorist attack or an act of war of course it obviously has to be one or the other. Here we have multiple military targets and we should not only wait but erect that straw man where the US federal government refuses to label anything terrorism until conclusively positive erected as-they want to label everything terrorism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.251.239 (talk) 22:38, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I would like a consensus of all editors (and administrators) on the following edit: Line 16:

| time = c. 10:45 a.m.–c. 11:15 a.m.

| timezone =

| type = Mass murder, Spree shooting, Domestic terrorism (suspected but not confirmed)

| fatalities = 5 (including the perpetrator)

| injuries = 3

Hardcoreromancatholic (talk) 01:00, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Oppose any reference to "terrorism" until it's called that by authoritative, reliable sources. Geogene (talk) 01:07, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

It already has been called that by CNN (the satellite and cable channel)!!!! Hardcoreromancatholic (talk) 01:09, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I think it's safe to call it terrorism at this point, but there may be some question about the modifier that precedes it. grifterlake (talk) 01:14, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

The matter is still under investigation. You may think it's terrorism (so do I) but that's just a personal opinion. Geogene (talk) 01:22, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Then you should provide some input as to what specific criteria are needed before it is labeled as terrorism. Does that criteria have to be an official designation by the United States government? Would you say that the 2009 Fort Hood shooting can safely be labeled as terrorism? I would say that it is definitely terrorism, but the position of the U.S. government is that it is a case of workplace violence, not terrorism. So what needs to happen before this incident can be listed in the article as terrorism? grifterlake (talk) 01:27, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

When law enforcement calls it terrorism, officially. A law review calling it that will also work. Or, an overwhelming number of reliable sources calling it that without hedging. Understand, the term is politically loaded. You need a large number of top-tier sources. Geogene (talk) 01:32, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea why some want to rush to label this terrorism. Right now it is being investigated as terrorism, as in it has not been established as fact yet. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:30, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

There are various reasons, but there's a general rule of thumb. When a Muslim does something terrifying, it's like "That's why the War on Terror needs to protect us!" When a non-Muslim does something terrifying, it's like "That's how the War on Terror needs to confuse us!" End the big war, the little edit wars will follow. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:21, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

It is official!!!! The nay's have it, so I will leave the article alone and let it stay as it currently is.

Hardcoreromancatholic (talk) 20:08, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Why rush to judgement? Just wait till never plus a day. On December 16, 2015, Comey said that the FBI investigation had concluded that "there is no doubt that [Abdulazeez] was inspired, motivated by foreign terrorist organization propaganda." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.251.239 (talk) 08:23, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

The nays have it, let's just temporarily suspend disbelief forever and never label this a radical Islamic terrorist attack. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks They just must be confused at the above page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.251.239 (talk) 08:27, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

"Three others were wounded"? Who were there?

We had a U.S. Marine and a cop wounded so does the other include a civilian? XXzoonamiXX (talk) 22:53, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I assume that you posted your question before the article was edited to its current state. Right now, it says: "Three others were wounded: a Navy sailor who was severely wounded; a Marine recruiter who was shot in the leg, treated, and released; and a police officer, Dennis Pedigo, who was shot in the ankle." Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:08, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

So no civilians? 65.88.88.203 (talk) 19:30, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Pedigo is just a regular Chattanooga police officer, not military police. So he's a civilian. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:07, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually, regular police officers are NOT civilians by definition when taken place in a non-war like context. Most definitions support this, since police forces in history were considered para-military. Only the laws of war defines police officers as civilians, since they are not considered combatant quality. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 17:29, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Even assuming that's true, this is very war-like, isn't it? A Muslim from the Middle East kills soldiers attempting to recruit civilians to become soldiers and fly over the Middle East, killing Muslims, at the official U.S Army place where the latter sort of thing routinely happens.

No, Chattanooga is not a war-zone and is not like the situation in Iraq. It's mostly peaceful like any other city in America. Remember, the War on Terror is mingled with lots of inconsistencies because we are not at war with a state, making it very hard who's a combatant or who's not, and most international laws governing armed conflict are extremely absent about it so it's left up to countries to define it.

The cop could sign up, the soldiers can't (because they already have). That's the distinction I make. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:02, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Cops have the legal power and authority to those who are not. They have allowed to carry firearms in public, while non-cops do not. They have the authority to pull people over or signal them to follow them, while non-cops can't. They are also more precise and clear about deadly force while it's hard for non-cops. They also have the authority to investigate crimes and chase suspects/fugitives while non-cops do not. That's the reason why those who are non-cops and also who are non-firefighters and non-military are called "civilians", because they do not have the education and training that cops (and firefighters and military personnel) receives, and the term is also used to distinguish between law-abiding citizens and the minority who are dedicated criminals. Contexts does matter you know. If we're going to talk about a war-like context, then you would have a point. But this is a non-war like setting we're talking about.

It's definitely not a war we're talking about. But the context is certainly war-like, given how soldiers were killed by guns at a place their army runs. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:08, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

We're talking about in a legal official definition, not terms of technicality. And it's no more of a "war-like" context in the streets of USA than gang violence that occurred daily in this country. Just because soldiers are killed doesn't make it a war-zone, no more than some burglar break into a soldier's home and murders him or her and his or her family. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 19:39, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Hadn't realized it was a zoning issue. Not sure what we're talking about, really.

Is there someway this article will change, depending on whether cops count as civilians? InedibleHulk (talk) 21:29, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

According to the Merriam Webster definition, a civilian is a person who is "not on active duty in the armed services or not on a police or firefighting force". That right there says it all. You're specifically talking about whether Chattanooga was a war zone. It is not, therefore, the laws of war don't apply. Police officers, even though if they carry firearms, are not combatants in time of armed conflict and therefore are civilians unless they took part in hostilities. The War on Terror is mostly about non-state actors and therefore tend to make the laws of armed conflict blurry who's a legitimate target or not. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 08:06, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, let's say the cop isn't your sort of "civilian". What's the point, relating to this article? Something about terrorism? InedibleHulk (talk) 21:50, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Engineering degree

@Trekphiler: I don't see why you're reverting any mention of this basic biographical detail. Geogene (talk) 19:09, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I've taken it all out for the same reason: it doesn't bear on the event. His background, outside the very basic, is OT for this page. It might fit a bio page, if there was one, but not this one. (As for whether there ought to be a bio page, IDK. I'm not sure it's warranted.) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:27, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Partial agreement, but my argument is that it is very basic (agree that hobbies like MMA aren't). Incidentally I've since noticed that that text was copypasted from the source so, if anybody does re-add it they'll need to do a paraphrase. There may be other CV in the article... It's too early for a standalone biography article in my opinion. Geogene (talk) 19:33, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

There isn't sufficient info for a biography. 65.88.88.203 (talk) 19:35, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. This is an article about an event. Nonetheless, we include information about the perpetrator(s) and the victim(s), in such articles. Necessarily, such information will include (to some extent) the biographies of said perpetrator(s) and victim(s). Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:04, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not saying it should all be removed. However, since the page is about the event & not about Abdulazeez, bio info should be kept to a bare minimum. Is there enough for a page on him? Seeing how short some are, I'd say yes. Is there merit in one? IDK; I'm disinclined to start proposing pages for everybody who commits an act like this one. (Is there one for the guy who shot Gianni Versace, frex?) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:14, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, Versace's murderer, Andrew Cunanan, was actually pretty infamous. 65.88.88.203 (talk) 20:26, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

He gets an article for doing multiple notable things. People who hadn't done anything notable before the thing and can never do another thing are best covered in the article about that one thing. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:32, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Perpetrator's background bleongs on this page. He is not notable enough for a page of his own. If started it would be speedily deleted ad WP:ONEEVENT E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:09, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I think that his (a) earning an engineering degree; and (b) interest/participation in MMA are both appropriate for his "mini" bio on this page. Those facts are rather general and are a part of his basic info/basic bio. It's not that involved, detailed, or esoteric. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:11, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Material being removed

Material on shooter's recent and new regular attendance at Friday prayers and pious blog posts being removed without discussion. This is being reported by the New York Times, Washingotn Post, Newsweek, other major media because it is frequently the case that a recent increase in interest in Quran and attending mosque is seen in individuals who commit mass shootings. It should be restored to the page. Editor who removed post alleged that this shooting is unrelated to ISIS. But the additions I made did not mention ISIS , in fact, there is no evidence of ISIS contact or inspiration. But the correlation between young Westerners becoming rapidly interested in certain forms of Islamic piety prior to committing acts of mass murder is well documented and that is why the shooters newly-found prayer habits and blog posts belong on the pageE.M.Gregory (talk) 21:01, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

You want an uptick in mosque attendance, with a connection & a cite, fine. Putting in the father's being on a watchlist or the parents' divorce, or where he attended high school, or his last job, IMO is OT or trivial, & has nothing whatever to do with the incident being described. The page is not about him, it's about what he did. If it's not, move the page. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:11, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Point of fact, father was never on the watchlist, as I wrote.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:07, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

WSJ : The FBI investigated the elder Abdulazeez twice, before and then just after the 9/11 attacks, for making financial contributions to a charity allegedly associated with a radical Palestinian terror group, U.S. officials said. He was put on the watch list after the second investigation 37.19.120.13 (talk) 14:59, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

WP pages on notable crimes regularly include biographical details about the perpetrator. The parent's divorce is brought in only as a source for their self-described identity as originating in "Palestine." This is significant because of their actual long residence in Jordan, and Kuwait. Imagined identities can be potent.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:21, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

It'd be nice if we could take a middle ground between no background at all and including travel itineraries and prayer habits. Yes, sources report all this, but WP:NOTNEWS. Geogene (talk) 21:24, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

1-0 as an amateur mixed martial artist. We all know how violent "those people" are. That's why we spell his name with an "mma" rather than "mme", isn't it? Timmy Hall may have been able to stop him in 2009, but just sat there. Almost exactly six years prior, or maybe exactly, counting leap years. That's my trivial, vaguely accusatory original research contribution. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:02, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Divorce proceedings

• I think the mention of the parents' divorce proceedings is either a BLP violation, or close to it. Even if not, it's not encyclopedic content. Geogene (talk) 01:22, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

  It belongs on the page for the same reason that it is being reported: because the understandings the shooter's family held about their ethnic origins inform understandings of his motivation.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:57, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

The above remark was in reference to a previous version of the article, which has been much improved by the removal of that material. Geogene (talk) 00:03, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Is that not part of Palestinian political violence ?

The perpetrator was palestinian, his actions had been motivited by the palestinian cause, his family members are realted to Palestinian terroism groups and palestinain activism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.19.117.254 (talk) 05:13, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• You'll need better sourcing, i.e., reliable media would have to be reporting on the sister's Instagram messages.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:56, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

  This source [1] does in fact give some support to I's argument. In addition, of course, to the fact that the family identified as "Palistinian." Usually , we take an individuals self=description of own identity as valid, or at least meaningful.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:50, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Category:Islamic terrorism in the United States

I believe that the diary findings published today ("becoming a martyr") make it appropriate to add Category:Islamic terrorism in the United States. E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:57, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

No, sources are saying he was suicidal. There has been no confirmed links to terror groups. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Where is it written that a link to a terrorist organization must exist to establish terrorism? Self-radicalization of Lone wolf terrorists is a well-established and now commonplace phenomenon. This is not to deny suicidality. A man who writes about his desire to "become a martyr" may be suicidal and decide to commit an act of terrorism as a way of killing two birds with one stone. E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:54, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

If an editor is making the determination that it's terrorism, and not the sources, then it's OR. Geogene (talk) 00:02, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Agreed here, if reliable sources are calling this guy a terrorist then change it, if not then leave it be. Per WP:TERRORIST where are your majority of sources here? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:05, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Er, there has been caution about atrributing motives sans evidence, but today's news is full of the diary and his ideological commitment to "martyrdom" [2].E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:40, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Yet, still waiting on the flood of sources calling it terrorism. Geogene (talk) 01:04, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

The ABC reference you cite does not support classifying him as a terrorist. If anything it points more towards suicide and not towards anything political.--Nowa (talk) 01:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Have you read martyr? It's a completely different ball of wax from "terrorist". InedibleHulk (talk) 20:21, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Have you read Shahid? It's a completely different ball of wax from "martyr".E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:40, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

How do you figure? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:57, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Regardless, if you do think they're completely different, you can't claim he meant one when he said the other. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:16, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

• Was watching Al Qaeda videos. I'm a patient man, we'll get there eventually.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:37, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

See Also: Gun Violence in the United States

@DisuseKid: inclusion of this See Also is not overlinking, as the article does not already link there. Do you disagree that (1) this was an act of violence (2) carried out with a gun that (3) occurred in the United States? If not, then you should self-revert by restoring that to the article. Geogene (talk) 00:08, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

If you include the general association with Gun violence in the United States with this article, then the Curtis Culwell Center attack obviously meets the same standards, and should be included. I think there needs to be some consensus generated here regarding what the nature of the "See also" section should reference. Personally, I believe that a link to general gun violence is too broad to include here, as this incident is definitely trending toward more than just a "guns on the loose" incident that groups it with gang violence, domestic violence, accidental violence, or even the general issue of the availability of guns in the U.S., especially since the neutrality of that article is currently in question. grifterlake (talk) 05:44, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• Dude, Abdulazeez owns legal guns, goes target shooting regularly, then, one fine day, he thinks "Hey, why don't I shoot me some live targets?" So, he strolls into Walmart, buys him a shit-load of live ammo for his AK-47-style semi-automatic rifle (and that ain't no sort of gun to hunt you a racked buck with), and heads out to shoot him some American soldiers, then he bags an American sailor. Now think hard, could this crime have anything to do with the easy, lawful availability of automatics and ammo in the U.S? Nah, nothing to see here, move along.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:22, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

The reason there are so many other articles to potentially link to is that this happens all the time now. The only odd thing about this one is that there may be terrorist ideology involved, in addition to the usual mental health issues. There's no good reason not to link it to an article that attempts to cover the "big picture" of overall gun violence. It's odd that this see also seems to be so opposed. Geogene (talk) 17:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@E.M.Gregory, If by "AK-47-style semi-automatic rifle" you mean the standard 7.62 x39mm round it *is* commonly used for deer and other mid to large game hunting, both with the semi-automatic AK-47 and its cousin, the SKS semi-automatic rifle. And as the evidence now coming out shows, he didn't just decide on "one fine day" to shoot some live targets; his motivation evolved over time. So no, this crime likely did not have anything to do with the simple availability of firearms or ammunition in the United States, but more with the intent of the perpetrator. And there are still serious questions about the neutrality of the Gun violence in the United States article, which is why it is flagged. Until at least that aspect of the article is fixed, it makes no more sense to link to it than it would to link to an article about the "violent nature" of Muslims, which would most likely be equally lacking in neutrality. grifterlake (talk) 18:02, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

That, like the "overlinked" rationale given when removing it earlier, is not a legitimate use of policy. The Neutrality tag is not a badge of shame for articles nor is it to be a disclaimer to readers, it's an effort to draw in uninvolved editors. To refuse to link to such an article on those grounds is counter to policy. Geogene (talk) 18:08, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree that it's not a badge of shame. It's a flag meant to involve other editors--for a reason. In the case of the Gun violence in the United States article it's because that article is nowhere near neutral in its point of view. And as stated by others and myself, there is increasing evidence that the Chattanooga attack was clearly terrorism in motive--CNN's Wolf Blitzer is now reporting that, and Chris Grollnek, a leading expert on active shooter situations states the same, which moves this incident further away from a general incident where guns were involved. And again, if this article is justified in carrying that link, it is also justified in include the Curtis Culwell Center attack along with it. grifterlake (talk) 19:08, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't see the basis for a separation between "terrorist gun violence in the US" and "normal gun violence in the US" when the weapons used were legally acquired. But I've added a Curtis Culwell attack link to the See Also. Geogene (talk) 19:35, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Legally acquired weapons are a minor factor between the two when compared with motivation. Most gun violence in the United States, excluding suicide is Black on Black violence related to gang activity and perpetrated with weapons acquired and possessed illegally. Guns just happen to be the weapon of choice here, as blades are the choice for some drug cartels. There is no political motive involved in the violence as is the case with terrorists, who are more holistic in their choice of weapons. grifterlake (talk) 20:09, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

It's interesting, however, that Israeli restrictions on gun sales have made attacks like the 2015 Shuvat Rachel shooting more difficult for terrorists to pull off. $6,500 for a Kalashnikov in the West Bank, that would have been beyond Abdulazeez's budget.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:45, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

The Israelis also live in a war zone and the West Bank, along with Gaza is terrorist central. It is also interesting that Palestinian terrorists seem to have no problem getting the material for rockets and bombs, which have been a regular problem for Israel. grifterlake (talk) 03:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Point is that on the West Bank, where Israel cooperates with the Palestinian Authority to police the sale of arms to private citizens, it is difficult for terrorists to get guns (true they use cars, knives and rocks as weapons) but guns are now difficult and expensive to obtain. Gun control has had a real impact there.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:12, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

What, exactly, does that have to do with anything Chattanooga-related? -- Veggies (talk) 17:43, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

It's the second part of the 'ol one-two. Fend of any references to the terrorism connection that is more obvious by the day, while at the same time trying to, in a sideways manner insinuate gun control into the article, which is at the root of the desire to associate with this article the general topic of gun violence in the U.S. grifterlake (talk) 21:42, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

No, this user wants to call this terrorism, too. See above. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:21, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Wiki links in victims chart

I have been putting Wiki links for USMC and USN in the victims chart. Someone keeps removing them. Why is that? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:REPEATLINK states: Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead. (emphasis added). WP:REPEATLINK also states: Duplicate linking in lists is permissible when if it significantly aids the reader. This is most often the case when the list is presenting information that could just as aptly be formatted in a table, and is expected to be parsed for particular bits of data, not read from top to bottom. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:45, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

It may be because there are already links for U.S. Marine and U.S. Navy, and it is customary to only link for the first reference in an article. But I don't see any problem with the links in the victims chart, as they are abbreviations and not duplicates of the articulated references. A lot of non-U.S. citizens might not know what "USMC" and "USN" mean, so I'd say let it ride. grifterlake (talk) 21:49, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. And even if they were first-time links – which they are not – they can/should still be linked in the chart. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:13, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

A much better idea would be to replace "USN" with "Navy" and "USMC" with "Marines", so that international readers will know the service branch without having to click on any links to understand US military jargon. Geogene (talk) 22:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Fine by me. A good suggestion. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:17, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Soldier vs. Marine vs. Service member

Geogene, you might want to revert your edit back. While there is a context in which using the term "soldier" is correct, it doesn't really apply here. Marines would probably take issue with being referred to as soldiers, as would members of the Navy. "Service member" would be the correct neutral reference, with Marine and sailor being the preferred self-identification. grifterlake (talk) 22:50, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

"Service member" is a wordy euphemism. If we're talking about different types collectively, "soldier" works best. If we're just talking about Marines, "Marine" works best. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

And, "service member" is linked to an article about "military personnel", a term that is even more vague than "soldier". Geogene (talk) 20:55, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia's own article, a soldier "is one who fights as part of an organized land-based armed force." A navy, by definition is not a land-based armed force, and the United States Marine Corp falls under the command of the United States Navy. So I don't think it's a question of being vague, but a question of being technically correct in addition to abiding by the preferred self-identification of those involved. Soldier, Marine, sailor and airman are the standard terms to identify members of the Army (and National Guard), Marines, Navy and Air Force, respectively. grifterlake (talk) 21:29, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

There was a time when "militant" was a perfectly fine word for these general sorts of military participants, but that time has certainly passed, especially in America. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:38, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

And consistent with the style guide used in the U.S. Military, Marine is capitalized as well as Soldier, Sailor, Airmen and Service members. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 21:53, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

That's good for illustrating the distinction, but Wikipedia has its own style guide. Everything except "Marine" is a lowercase common noun, and it happened at 10:30 am, not 1030 hours. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:07, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I was aware that Marine was capitalized, but unaware that Soldier, Airmen and Sailor were capitalized. And I am also unaware that Wikipedia has a style guide indicating that Marine is the only uppercase noun. Does this only apply to United States Marines? Or are all Marines regardless of nation referred to in uppercase, and can you point me to the style guide for this? grifterlake (talk) 22:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

See MOS:MILTERMS Geogene (talk) 22:41, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I was essentially bluffing, only putting my opinion next to the claim that we have a style guide. Thanks for looking into it. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:58, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I have looked at that, but there is nothing to indicate capitalization rules for any of the terms under discussion. The closest text in that section is that "[t]he general rule is that wherever a military term is an accepted proper name, as indicated by consistent capitalization in sources, it should be capitalized. Where there is uncertainty as to whether a term is generally accepted, consensus should be reached on the talk page." Hence, the reason for this section on the talk page. Is there actually a consensus that "[e]verything except 'Marine' is a lowercase common noun"? And in the absence of a specific Wikipedia policy on this, is it better to defer to the next style guide in the hierarchy, or go with consensus? grifterlake (talk) 23:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

It's covered by the "formal names of military units" bit. One soldier/sailor/SEAL is the base unit. "Marine" is consistently capitalized in sources, so we go with it. That probably comes from being a part of the branch's proper name. If there was a United States Sailor Corps, most sources would probably capitalize "sailor", too. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:18, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I think you are "essentially bluffing" again. No where in the "'formal names of military units' bit" does it imply anything of the sort. That section refers to "[f]ormal names of military units" and "types of military unit". There is nothing there that even comes close to indicating anything whatsoever about the format for referencing members of those units. grifterlake (talk) 02:05, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Sir, no sir! Certain enough this time. It says "words for types of military unit (army, navy, fleet, company, etc.)". Single soldiers are some of the etcetera. You quarter a battalion, you can get four companies. Quarter a company, get four platoons. Then squads, then soldiers. Quarter a soldier, he's FUBAR. So that makes him the base unit in counting these things. Military organization#Modern hierarchy calls the numbers "strength", but they mean "strength in number of soldiers/whoever". InedibleHulk (talk) 01:59, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

AP Style guide mentions that Marine is capitalized when referring to the U.S. Marines. Although it doesn't mention the other services as being capitalized,although many times they are capitalized as well from time to time depending on the marketplace, esp the media outlets in and around a military installation in the United States. BTW, not everything comes in four. I've known of many battalions with more than four companies. And some companies have more than 4 platoons. I was a company commander of a unit that was smaller than a platoon. Was kinda screwed up as the MTOE had more than that but due to manning issues, we were never, ever full strength and could have just been redesignated as a detachment but that is the way things go some times. When I was working up at Corps level I found out why it was, partly due to the shuffling of personnel and money but due to the type of specialized equipment we used. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 21:26, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, real life gets complicated. Thought exercises shouldn't be. That's the only reason I went with four. Simple like Tetris. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:51, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Anyone have a problem with this version? Way too many citations in that lead before, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:13, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Motive (again)

Regarding this edit [3], I'm sorry, but Joe Biden isn't law enforcement. When he ascribes the motive to "perverted jihadism" at a funeral, it does not mean that the motive is officially determined. Come on, folks. I don't really understand how this distinction between the FBI and a politician speaking at a funeral can escape anyone. This isn't a tabloid. Since the IP is edit warring to get that in, unless there's strong consensus in favor, in a few days I'll revert and request page protection (as poorly sourced information). Geogene (talk) 02:57, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

@GeneralizationsAreBad: what now? Geogene (talk) 17:17, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. It is indeed edit-warring even if it's included in the paper. I am with you on this one. GAB^Hello! 21:51, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree. This information is just inflammatory and unsupported by the official investigation. Versus001 (talk) 03:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

President Obama: "It is this type of attack that we saw at Fort Hood in 2009; in Chattanooga earlier this year; and now in San Bernardino." So are all the deniers now ready to accept that the motive for Chattanooga was in fact, terrorism? grifterlake (talk) 16:38, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Now that official sources say so. [4] Geogene (talk) 20:13, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Mohammad-Youssef-Abdulazeez-mugshot.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:37, 29 May 2022 (UTC)