Wikipedia has some limited value if you want to get some facts about Tiberius Caesar or Henry Agard Wallace or Leon Spinks, but on contemporary issues it has — like virtually everything else — a pronounced hard-Left, pro-jihad bias. The biographies of Islamic apologists (John Esposito, Karen Armstrong, Reza Aslan, etc.) are fawning press releases, while those of foes of jihad terror have lengthy “Criticism” sections that are filled with every negative statement about them and their work that can be found. And so it comes as no surprise that Wikipedia’s editors would deep-six an article about Tnuza Jamal Hassan, who recently set a series of fires on the campus of St. Catherine University in Minnesota, saying she wanted to “hurt people,” after exhorting Muslim students to join jihad terror groups such as al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or al-Shabaab. Hassan said she set the fires in revenge for supposed American atrocities on “Muslim land.” She wrote a letter to her roommates that police said contained “radical ideas about supporting Muslims and bringing back the caliphate.”
Despite all this, a Wikipedia editor says “she has not been charged with terrorism.” In reality, she faces a terror charge. And “Ms Hassan may or may not be having a mental health incident.” Of course! More of the global outbreak of mental illness. Wikipedia says “There is no source indicating that Hassan is a Muslim,” when there is an abundance of sources indicating that she is a Muslim.
Note also the Wikipedia editor saying “I removed the categories ‘Muslim terrorists’ (which is does [sic] not exist).” 30,000 jihad attacks worldwide since 9/11, and Wikipedia doesn’t even have a category for “Muslim terrorists.” This is the most vivid indication of all that when it comes to facts about the world today, Wikipedia is Leftist, agenda-driven, and worthless.
Wikipedia’s discussion on Tnuza Jamal Hassan’s jihad arson attack (thanks to Oliver):
Article on previously non-notable person who at this point is accused but not convicted of a crime. Per WP:BLPCRIME, this sort of material should generally not go into BLPs, and under WP:BLP1E, its not certain she would get an article even if convicted. Nat Gertler (talk) 23:52, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 00:41, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 00:42, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 00:42, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 00:42, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 00:42, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:RAPID and WP:NCRIME. Per WP:PERP the article should be renamed to St. Catherine’s University Arson Attack. National on-going coverage of this crime/terror-attack. Coverage sufficient for notability, save WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE which can not be evaluated due to this being a new event (though it has been covered since occurring) – requiring crystal balling on our part, hence this should be kept per WP:RAPID.Icewhiz (talk) 07:18, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:20, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- Keep per Icewhiz .It should be renamed to St. Catherine’s University Arson Attack. It has national and even International coverage and this has happened in a University.Passes WP:RAPID and WP:NCRIME.The only question is whether it passes WP:LASTING that question can be revisited after a few months.Hate crime ,Terrorist or religion motivated attacks and Honour killing generally do have lasting impact.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:54, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- If it is going to be renamed, let me suggest St. Catherine University arson instead, because
- The name of the university doesn’t actually have the apostrophe-s in it.
- “Arson Attack” is descriptive, not part of a proper name, and should thus not be capitalized
- “Arson Attack” seems redundant. We wouldn’t say “murder attack” or “robbery attack”. —Nat Gertler (talk) 20:25, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- Keep — disclaimer, I started this article. Nominator NatGertler initially placed a {{prod}} on the article. When I left some questions, on their talk page, about their policy interpretations, they called my questions “badgering”. I can’t help noticing that this nomination is essentially the same as that used in the prod, even though I thought I had raised good questions over their interpretations of BLP1E and BLPCRIME. I find that disappointing. Geo Swan (talk) 14:37, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- Would you care to restate your !vote rationale in terms of policy, rather than in terms of attacking me? —Nat Gertler (talk) 15:35, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- Some people conflate civil and collegial substantive discussion over issues with personal attacks. I encourage you to make sure you don’t make this conflation. It is not good for the project.
- On your talk page I responded to the BLP1E claim you placed in your prod, yesterday. I reminded you that ALL three of the numbered subsections of BLP1E are supposed to be satisfied, before an individual is considered an instance of BLP1E. I drew your attention to the phrase “…is likely to remain, a low-profile individual.”I explained that domestic terrorists, in the USA, are very rare. I compared US domestic terrorist to plain ordinary garden variety murderers. We never cover plain ordinary murderers. We cover a small number of murderers who are in some way exceptional. Ordinary murdeers are adequately covererd in our articles on murder, domestic violence, firearms, etc., because they are so similar.Domestic US terrorists are so rare that claim removed for BLP reasons Geo Swan (talk) 22:27, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- Domestic US terrorists are not all that rare, alas. The list you will find at Terrorism in the United States will show you many such incidents, and that is certainly not all of them. I have edited out your claims here about the subject of this article, who has not been convicted of anything and discussion about her is limited by WP:BLP guidelines. —Nat Gertler (talk) 22:46, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- Delete or Rename The event is potentially notable not the person. TheGreatWikiGeorge (talk) 16:42, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- Delete This is an article about a 19 year-old woman who appears to me to be having some form of breakdown. The incident has had no lasting impact on either the building or the institution. In the very unlikely event that this becomes something more than an unfortunate episode in a young woman’s life, we can always recreate the article. World’s Lamest Critic (talk) 00:30, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- Ms Hassan may or may not be having a mental health incident.Yes, the incident caused no actual casualties, and caused little physical damage. But, she appears to have waived her right to protect herself from self-incrimination, and willing made some damaging confessions. Anyone who actually read the article, or did their own google search and took even a minute looking at the articles covering her, will have seen she told investigators that she had hoped to burn the University to the ground, and cause extensive casualties.I suggest it is not her actual result that matters, but rather her intent. Many mass killers could also be described as young people who appeared to be having some kind of breakdown. Their youth or possible mental health issues do not keep them from being notable.You suggest this will likely be nothing “more than an unfortunate episode in a young woman’s life”. Geo Swan (talk) 02:45, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- I have read both our article and the sources used for it. I am aware of what she is alleged to have told investigators. She set eight small fires. “All but one of the fires were in trash cans,” according to this report. Her actions and words do not align. At this point it is not known where Hassan was born or if she is a US citizen, yet she is being described here as “a domestic terrorist”. This is irresponsible at best. World’s Lamest Critic (talk) 03:57, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- There has been a bunch of problematic content involved. I just had to go strip out article claims that there was a list of charges of which arson was the worst (source only said one charge of arson); that she was still in custody (source, a Monday article, only said that she was in custody on Friday night); and that she would have her next hearing next year (reality: next month.) The net effect of demonizing her with false information is of real concern. That the same editor asserted today the suspect’s guilt on another Wikipedia page keeps this a matter of severe BLP concern. —Nat Gertler (talk) 16:18, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NOTNEWS / WP:TOOSOON / WP:BLP. The subject has not yet been convicted, and the article reads like a news story. No apparent lasting significance just yet. If the incident is still remembered in six months, then sure, an article would be appropriate. But Wikipedia is not a newspaper. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:28, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- Delete Seems like routine news-of-the-day, a minor campus crime incident. Nothing particularly notable about arson, no significant impact beyond the local region. ValarianB(talk) 16:24, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- Delete, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E are relevant here. Lankiveil (speak to me) 23:46, 24 January 2018 (UTC).
- Delete. Fails WP:BLPCRIME, WP:BLP1E. We are not a police blotter for the reporting of minor crimes. Calling this an “arson attack” like it’s some kind of coordinated terrorist plot is a hell of a stretch. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:42, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- Delete. Local, minor-crime story that wouldn’t even rate a mention in a Minnesotapedia, if one existed. Whoever wrote this inflated nonsense should know better. —Calton | Talk 05:35, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- Delete Local 1E crime. EEng 07:53, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- Keep – and rename. This passes WP:RAPID and WP:NCRIME. LASTING can not be evaluated at this time.–BabbaQ (talk) 15:14, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
- Note – I was recently criticized by the article creator for having edited the article while it was under AFD. As this is a BLP of a subject who is likely receiving more attention (and thus having this page referenced) than they ever have or will again, I thought it best to remove or correct statements that did not match sources, particularly those that painted her in a negative light. This included falsehoods and unsourced damaging claims that were added by the complaining poster after the start of the AFD (such as the claim that her next court date was more than a year away, that she had “charges” of which one was the “most serious” when the source listed just a single charge, and that she was “currently” being held in custody.) If anyone wishes to see the article’s state before the AFD, it’s here. —Nat Gertler (talk) 17:21, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
- I also edited the article after it was nominated for deletion. I removed the categories “Muslim terrorists” (which is does not exist) and “arsonists”. There is no source indicating that Hassan is a Muslim. She has not been charged with terrorism. She has not been convicted of arson. Geo Swan should probably be banned from BLPs. World’s Lamest Critic (talk) 03:21, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article’s talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Bob Carrillo says
By name and photo, I’ll bet she is a Seventh Day Adventist…or…a frutarian perhaps..
I live in this insane asylum, called Minnesota. You can’t make this up anymore.
This little 19 year-old admitted arsonist, and admitted ISIS inspired Islamist and terrorist, will likely get off with mandatory counseling, and a lifetime supply of HALAL food, as her punishment..
She has been here for almost 10 years now, as I understand it, and I am wondering who taught her such vile hatred, and what mosque she was attending..
mortimer says
Apparently, the RED-GREEN AXIS OF EVIL is work at Wikipedia sabotaging the Western world and its human rights and civil liberties.
They suppress the salient facts of JIHAD-TERRORISM and deny that it is a NORMATIVE, CENTRAL, CORE PRACTICE of Islam, rather than an aberration.
Wikipedia is working against the interests of human rights and civil liberties since the purpose of jihad is to remove both human rights and civil liberties from women and ‘others’.
Wikipedia’s bosses are NAIVE, GULLIBLE and UNREAD about the meaning, motive and methods of jihad. JIHAD IS MUCH MORE PERVASIVE, CONSPIRATORIAL and DEVIOUS than they know.
Shmoovie says
Agree.
Jihad can also be closer than these useful fools would want to know.
Joe says
To say a few words in Wikipedia’s defense, the problem here is really the mainstream media and the culture at large, not Wikipedia itself. It is accepted part of wikipedia’s mission that it ‘follows’ rather than ‘leads’. The mission of Wikipedia is NOT actually to find out the truth when the journalists of the world don’t tend to agree with it.
Joe says
This is not to say that I don’t agree that it is agenda-driven and largely ‘leftist’. It absolutely is. But its editors are volunteers, and the culture at large has these leftist opinions, and Wikipedia reflects that.
Vann Boseman says
The political culture in this country typically consists of the left and the right. The culture at large has leftest opinions, but right wing opinions too. That Trump won the election in 2016 demonstrates well that many or most US citizens do not have leftest opinions. Wikipedia, in practice, maliciously and knowingly twists the truth to generate beliefs about the truth that are leftist in origin much or most of the time. The proof of what I am saying is on Wikipedia itself because, as Robert Spencer demonstrates here, the “editorial” notes associated with whatever is on Wikipedia is on each subject.
Emilie Green says
Everything you say about the whitewashing of Islam, Robert, is true. What’s equally true is that people know.
We don’t know exactly how or what we’re going to do about this whitewashing (besides continuing to tell and spread the truth), but a general awareness of the unsavory nature of Islam is growing.
Here’s an example. Last Summer a billboard appeared with the title “The Perfect Man” on top, followed by a listing of six events in the life of this perfect man.
The words Islam, Mohammad, or Muslim do not appear.
Yet everyone knew.
https://www.google.com/search?q=perfect+man+billboard&client=firefox-b-1&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjY6IeE26XZAhVohOAKHVFjAp0QsAQIOA&biw=1146&bih=953
eduardo odraude says
Literally anyone can edit a Wikipedia article — other editors may then undo your edits as well. The result is that there can be a sort of editing war over controversial issues, and then Wikipedia can supply a mediator, or at least that is how I remember it used to work. So that means if you have more pro-Islam or anti-“Islamophobia” people editing than you have Islam critics, the articles will lean in the direction that has more editors or editors who know better how to use Wikipedia rules to establish an edit. To some extent, Wikipedia articles at times reflect controversy over an issue.
Vann Boseman says
That is what ii says it is. But it is not true. If you believe that anyone can edit a Wikipedia article, then try to edit anything concerning Lincoln. “mediators” almost always end up being leftists, so decisions concerning what ends up on Wikipedia are not resolved impartially. This is apparent. This is obvious by actively attempting to edit. If the subject is something that few people know about and is not political in nature, then you may be correct.
Shmoovie says
Interesting insight into reliable Wikipedia– particularly the remarks insisting this was a non-muslim, non-arson, non-attack non-story. One which will be (hopefully, sucessfully) forgotten in six months.
Gjallarhornet says
Modern media. When the connection between islam and bloodshed is *too* obvious to ignore, what to they do? They just remove the ‘islam’-bit. There, problem solved.
RonaldB says
I’ll actually have to agree with the editor that a contemporary news story, with ongoing developments is not a good subject for Wikipedia. Wiki is not for news, but for in-depth coverage. For instance, it’s coverage of “Jihad” is too benign, but you can read the article, read between the lines, and get the information. You’ll have to look elsewhere to appreciate the true malevolence of jihad, but that’s understandable in a reference work.
I think Robert Spencers works are a much better exposition of Islamic topics anyway. They’re certainly colored, but always truthful. I think truthful information on Islam with a true perspective on how evil it is is needed, but perhaps a reference work is not the place.
MFritz says
You trust in Wikipedia, you also believe in Santa Claus.
LeftisruiningCanada says
Depends on the subject, as some areas are very good, but yes in general it is at best a place to start reading about something if you need a place to start.
MFritz says
Problem is also WHO is moderating.
On German Wikipedia for example there are a bunch of radical leftists working together, basically astro turfing certain political topics 24/7. As soon as somebody tries to change/advance an article they block his attempts. Up to and including insults, mobbing, blocking etc.
There was even a documentary about it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHfiCX_YdgA
And nothing happened. Hell, even the founder of WP has no issue with political bias. As long as it goes in “his” direction.
St. Manuel II Palaiologos says
Apparently, according to these people, if your name is Christodoulos Papadapoulos, that disqualifies you from being suspected of being Greek.
What nonsense.
Ray Jarman says
Do the words from our president come to mind; you know — FAKE NEWS. One could also call it an outright lie since one of the definitions of a lie is omission. By omitting the fact that these slugs are mulsims who frequently attend the houses of the cult, the press is proving that it has an agenda and only propagandizes which means Fake News to me. Personally I am tired of the propagandists.
Lydia Church says
Even if the jihadist would be standing for all to see with a sign that read “This is for isis, and allah” etc., they still would fail to recognize the link to islam and islamic terrorism!
She herself admitted it! I mean, what else do they need?!?!
sally says
The reason this kind of news management ever worked is because there was a monopoly and no one ever heard the truth. As long as we find other outlets we can see what is happening and we can evaluate Wikipedia. It is why the freedom of speech is absolutely VITAL in our society and why we must never allow it to be constrained. Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller and others have been trying to get this across to people and they are right. There will always be propagandists in the “news” media like this. Our TV networks are the same. So we need to not only tolerate other voices but encourage them to speak out. In the case of organizations like Wikipedia, eventually they will suffer from tying their own shoelaces together like this. No one will believe them. Just like a doorbell that doesn’t work or a disconnected alarm system. We will find out other ways and Wikipedia will marginalize itself and render itself irrelevant.
Carl Goldberg, PhD says
It may be that the category, “Muslim terrorists” waws removed: “Note also the Wikipedia editor saying “I removed the categories ‘Muslim terrorists’ (which is does [sic] not exist).”
However, there is a Wikipedia article on “Islamic terrorism”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_terrorism. The article starts out with: “Islamic terrorism, Islamist terrorism or radical Islamic terrorism is defined as any terrorist act, set of acts or campaign committed by groups or individuals who profess Islamic or Islamist motivations or goals.[1] Islamic terrorists justify their violent tactics through the interpretation of Quran and Hadith according to their own goals and intentions.[2][3]”