“An editor named Bastun further claimed that just because Omar Mateen pledged allegiance to ISIS, that doesn’t mean that his actions were indicative of the Islamic group. ‘The world’s asylums are full of people who claim they’re Napoleon. If one of them attacks a psychiatric nurse, we don’t attribute the attack to the French Empire – even if clickbaity tabloids or reactionary sources do.’ said Bastun.”
So even when a Muslim says that he is massacring people in the name of the Islamic State, it’s not an “Islamist terror attack.” What would Wikipedia consider sufficient evidence to establish that something was an “Islamist terror attack”? Apparently nothing. Wikipedia, as a prime outpost of the political and media elites’ spin on events, is steadfastly refusing to recognize that such a thing could have happened in Orlando.
“Wikipedia Removes Orlando Shooting From ‘Islamist Terror Attack’ List,” by Lucas Nolan, Breitbart, June 30, 2016:
Wikipedia editors seem unable to agree upon whether or not the Orlando Pulse Nightclub Shooting was in fact an Islamist terrorist attack.
The discussion began following the removal of the Orlando shooting from the terrorist attack list by the Wikipedia editor known as MrX.
In explanation for this sudden removal MrX had this to say: “I have removed the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting from this list. It does not meet the stated inclusion criteria for the list. The fact that ISIL has, via their media agency, made such a claim does not make it true.”
One editor in particular, Jujutsuan, took issue with the removal of the attack, providing a comprehensive list of the criteria which the attack met which grants it a place on the terrorist attack list, the list is below
- Terror attacks… check.
- by Islamist extremists… check.
- to further a perceived Islamic religious or political cause… check.
- have occurred globally… Orlando is on earth: check.
- The attackers have used such tactics as arson, vehicle rampage attacks, bomb threats, suicide attacks, bombings, spree shooting, stabbings, hijackings, kidnappings and beheadings… check.
- The following is a list of Islamist terrorist attacks that have received significant press coverage since 1980… check.
Other editors chimed in, claiming there is a “lack of reliable sources” proving that the Orlando shooting was carried out by an Islamic extremist. CBS reported that Mateen had posted “You kill innocent women and children by doing us airstrikes..now taste the Islamic state vengeance” on Facebook, while CNN reported that the shooter had “pledged allegiance to ISIS.” Yet according to some editors, these do not constitute “reliable sources” on Wikipedia.
An editor named Bastun further claimed that just because Omar Mateen pledged allegiance to ISIS, that doesn’t mean that his actions were indicative of the Islamic group.
“The world’s asylums are full of people who claim they’re Napoleon. If one of them attacks a psychiatric nurse, we don’t attribute the attack to the French Empire – even if clickbaity tabloids or reactionary sources do.” said Bastun.
Of course, if we were to follow this logic in relation to all recent terror attacks, then ISIS would be the least effective terrorist group to ever exist, having no responsibility for any terrorist attacks done in their name. As it currently stands the Orlando shooting has not been included on the list, which can be found here….

Angemon says
This is nothing new – “liberal” bias has been festering in Wikipedia for quite some time.
Hope says
I agree.
politically concerned says
Wikipedia is no longer to be considered a non-biased source of information.
Hope says
Agreed
gravenimage says
Unfortunately true.
Wikipedia entries on Jihad Watch and on Robert Spencer are extremely biased.
eduardo odraude says
Absolutely anyone can edit a wikipedia article. And edit other people’s edits there. Etc. So what you have there is an ongoing editing war over various categories of articles.
Tom Saunders says
I challenge Mr. Bastun to find one person in the psychiatric facility of his choice, other than the day room where the Wikipedia editorial staff holds its daily meetings, and find one person that claims to be Napoleon.
John Marst says
There are no Islamic terrorist attacks and no Islamic State either. And even if there were an Islamic State, it has nothing to do with Islam. We don’t know why people wave black flags, toss gay of buildings, and murder Christians. Perhaps such people are under emotional strain due to internal conflicts about sexual identity. They may as well claim they are Little Sisters of the Poor. And they might be, for all we know.
gravenimage says
Grimly humerous.
Guest says
Wikipedia why have you betrayed us?
eduardo odraude says
Wikipedia is not a single unified entity in that sense. Anyone with an internet connection can edit any Wikipedia article at any time. You or I could go there right now and change the terrorism article to include Orlando. If enough people did that, and argued reasonably for it, and persisted in the battle to control the Wikipedia article in question, that would win at Wikipedia. If not enough people have the time and patience to fight for their understanding of the truth, then it won’t appear on Wikipedia, at least not in articles on controversial topics.
WorkingClassPost says
Yes, sometimes only those with a fixed and well defined agenda make the effort to exert influence.
It’s all part of that civilizational jihad, that Hugh posted about recently.
This is one more area that Counter Jihad needs to get more active, anyone with the time and interest, should get involved. Wikipedia along with local and national government, education, entertainment and..shit, where are these scumbags not trying to trying to influence and corrupt our world?
Kay says
Of course they don’t have responsibility. They haven’t figured that out yet. They claim it’s the will of A.
And we will have plenty of our own to rush to their defense claiming that they were provoked in some way.
So . . . action (detrimental and impacting others) with no responsibility. It doesn’t make any sense.
Keys says
How much money and influnce do the Saudi Arabians have?
Iggy A says
For an organization that frequently puts up notices about needing funding via donations, they might want to rethink that…
Hope says
More left-wing media bias. This denial and obfuscation concerning islam is a sickness, a cancer that will ultimately destroy us if allowed to continue.
gravenimage says
Wikipedia removes Orlando jihad massacre from ‘Islamist Terror Attack’ list
…………………
Must be another case of “workplace violence”…sarc/off
Even without Omar Mateen’s pledge to ISIS, there is ample evidence that this was a Jihad terror attack, including his screaming “Allahu Akbar!” as he slaughtered his victims. More sickening whitewash of Islam.
eagle says
Yes,The world’s asylums are full of mentally ill Muslim people, we just don’t have enough drugs to treat them all. A country defined by its boarders should have the right to keep out these mentally ill. Maybe Planned Parenthood can sell their parts, we know there is at least one person looking for a new Cadillac at Planned Parenthood. Spread the word, vote for Trump!!
Champ says
Dhimmi Wackipedia is reflecting our wacky-world to a Tee …but the *Truth* about islam & company is what we deserve and need!
D.C. Watson says
This pig’s name will remain posted here:
http://hstrial-rocketsredglare.homestead.com/Page-3.html?_=1438662881042
;,
eagle says
D.C. Watson, thank you for the link to this incredible list. I have it listed as my Muslim Pig List.
eagle says
These people on this link and I use this term loosely, are the Muslim Brotherhood Obama is protecting, Obama is to blame for the American lives that have been killed on his watch. The American people somehow put this Muslim in office twice. I cannot trust the judgement that goes on here, one can only figure the voting system is rigged.
Carmel says
Did anyone notice Wikipedia use Obama’s phraseology : ISIL and not ISIS? Was the president dictating to Wikipedia what to write?
eagle says
Our dear Muslim leader will write his own legacy by executive order, count on it.
Voytek Gagalka says
Wikipedia have countless thousands of unpaid editors and censors. Those who create original first entry articles, if they choose so they can have predominant influence on further editing, allowing some, disregarding or blocking others (particularly if they would endorse views with which original creator would not agree and which would have lack of evidence in source materials). Plus they require stating sources and I am almost certain that if someone give them Robert Spencer’s work as a source, they would treat it as an “opinion” worthy disregarding, not a “proof,” even if one would quote directly from Qur’an. Subsequently beyond articles on physical science and math, they have generally tremendous leftist bias and their work should NOT be regarded as good source of knowledge. Gossips, tendentious half-truth or outright lies (taqiyya) are the norm, particularly on such “hot” subject as Islam.
Keys says
Thanks for your comment, VG.
I noticed this Wikipedia “slant” a while back. After I read about some topic on Islam by Robert Spencer and others, I looked up that same topic on Wiki, and the information was definitely Islam-friendly.
Surely, the Saudis are paying to have their scholars monitor any info regarding Islam on Wiki, as well as many other sites.
Ex: The Wikipedia article about Taqiyya in parts explains that it should only be used for purposes of a muslim’s safety. The article ends with:
“Since the 2000s, taqiyya has become a frequently invoked concept in debates surrounding criticism of Islam and especially Islamic extremism. Islamic scholars tend to emphasize that taqiyya is only permissible under duress, and that the inflationary use of the term qualifies as “a staple of right-wing Islamophobia in North America” (Mohammad Fadel 2013), or “Taqiyya libel against Muslims”[44] while their critics accuse them of practicing “taqiyya about taqiyya” (Raymond Ibrahim, 2014).[45]”
I think Raymond Ibrahim is entirely correct: “taqiyya about taqiyya”.
As for frequently invoked “since the 2000s”; No, since the 600s seems about right. Even in the 1970s and 1980s Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq used it when lying to the Americans about Pakistan’s nuclear program and other things. Since for a muslim Islam is a good cause, it is permissable to lie for Islam. Period.
————
Zia said this to Pres. Reagan about supplying arms to the Afghans:
According to Zia, “We’ll just lie about it. That’s what we’ve been doing for eight years.” He added, “Muslims have the right to lie in a good cause.” (From the Cold War to a New Era: The United States and the Soviet Union, 1983-1991, p.280.)
WorkingClassPost says
This Napoleon thing is such a spurious argument.
While it’s true that the Messiah complex is a recognised condition, even among some who previously appeared sane – after visiting Jerusalem it is relatively common.
But this guy didn’t claim to be mohamed did he?
And if simply being a muslim is worthy of institutionalisation, which many of us probably agree with, then we’re gonna need a bigger hospital!
Creole Gumbo says
One problem may be use of the word “extremist.” These are not Islamic extremist attacks. They are simply Islamic attacks carried out by devout Muslims. They are doing what the book tells them to do. Maybe Wikipedia would not edit these reports if they simply identified the perpetrators as Muslims.
Wakeup says
Enough with the islaminst and islamism invented apollogists made up words, its islamic and he is a muslim, its what they do.
Why did you bite me? I’m a snake its what I do.
Michael Alvarez says
Important to note, this terrorist parents were on terror watch list for being terrorist before being allowed into the USA AND this terrorist make visits to the JIhadi homelands before his cowardly attack. Terrorist by associating, plus his terrorist cry.
pdxnag says
He claimed only to be an ordinarily grunt, not god.