Talk:2018 Strasbourg attack

A summary of what is known

The following facts have been established without a doubt, and reported by the BBC, the NYT, the Guardian, CNN, etc.

• Chérif Chekatt's father is a Fiche S Islamic fundamentalist, as are some of Chérif Chekatt's brothers.
• Chérif Chekatt was considered as a gangster-djihadist and had shown radical religious practices in Islam.
• He was a Fiche S, too.
• During the attack, he shouted "Allahu akbar".
• According to his father, Chékatt was fond of ISIL, while his father was not.
• Once Chékatt died, ISIL called him one of their soldiers.
• This claim was taken with scepticism by French authorities and called bogus by Interior Minister, Christopher Castaner.
• A few days later, a USB stick containing Chekatt's pledge of allegiance to ISIL was found, vindicating ISIL's claim.

Alivebills pretends that an Islamic terrorist would not have killed a Muslim, as Chékatt has done. The 2016 Nice truck attack had claimed the lives of several Muslims who were in the crowd. It was called an act of Islamic terrorism.

There is no reason, except bad faith or worse, not to mention Islamic terrorism in that particular case. --Edelseider (talk) 11:37, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Rama, Pigsonthewing: What arguments are there as of now against including the category Category:Islamic terrorism in France, apart from the fact that it would hurt the beliefs or feelings of some apologist? --Edelseider (talk) 15:24, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Edelseider, I imagine ISIL want it in the category, along with the twenty odd mentions of 'terror' in the article. Not an argument for exclusion, but worth considering when making this a priority and damning all and sundry, stating "Wikipedia is a cesspit full of malign people", making personal attacks, and opening complaints on anyone who shows up. Have you considered whether you might be better disposed not drawing attention to what these terrorists want to be talked about ad nauseam, sowing fear and hate. cygnis insignis 16:07, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

"What arguments are there as of now..?" The same as before: If you have a reliable source showing that this was 'part of Islamic terrorism', it should be given, and the claim stated, in the body of the article. If not, then templates and categories should not be making that claim. "apart from the fact that it would hurt the beliefs or feelings of some apologist?" Where have I ever given that as a reason? Making passive-aggressive insinuations of that kind suggests that you are not acting in good faith. Desist. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:46, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Cygnis insignis, you didn't want to read the article that I provided. Instead, you used whataboutery ("climate change") diff and ad hominem attacks ("Koch magazine") diff. And you relied on Alivebills's summary of another article to get an idea of the article that you didn't want to read diff, thus making a display of your closed-mindedness and holding me in open contempt through your accusation of me not having understood what I had read diff. Now, why of all people should I even speak with you? Didn't you show that you were biased against me from the very moment you spouted "climate change" (something completely off topic and only designed to malign my contribution to the debate), and didn't you insult my intelligence by claiming that I didn't understand what I read? --Edelseider (talk) 19:13, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Edelseider, you are correct that I attempted to malign the source, Koch backed 'marxists' fuelling a culture war for their personal profit. Likewise, a source that is clearly involved in global warming pseudo-scepticism is extremely dubious to editors who value V and RS. You can safely characterise that as me being 'triggered'. That is about the business of content, however, pointing out those contradictions is unlikely to de-radicalise this interaction and its boisterous to and fro. My personal interest is to fight war itself, my success in helping others to liberate themselves is about 3–5 %, maybe less, getting to 10% would be a notable success. My editing focus has been elsewhere, things I think deserve more attention, but for the radicalism, indignation and pings drew me back here. cygnis insignis 02:29, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing, why do both the French and the German Wikipedias call the attack an "Islamist terror attack"? Granted, French Wikipedia does, generally speaking, suffer of a credibility problem, but that is not the case of German Wikipedia. This is not whataboutism but a serious question. There is at present no "smoking gun" in the form of a minister or public prosecutor having declared it officially to be what it no doubt (!) is, but it doesn't prevent our colleagues from labelling it, does it? Why? And, as I said, there is at least one English-speaking outlet that used term: One of the grimmest details to come out of the Islamist attack on a Strasbourg Christmas market last week – in which 29-year-old Chérif Chekatt killed four, left one brain dead, and injured 11 others – was that one of the men killed had emigrated to France to escape the Taliban. --Edelseider (talk) 19:51, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

I don’t agree with the stronger claims made by Edelseiser. But is there any reason why this page should not describe this incident as a terrorist attack.

In my opinion, the New York Times article I have repeatedly cited puts the matter beyond any doubt. There is no reliable source I am aware of contradicting it (ie, any reliable source positively suggesting this was NOT a terrorist attack.

The only argument against this appears appears to be Aluvebills’ honest but misguided stance based on his own personal analysis of the situation, which is clearly irrelevant.

So I ask again, is there any sensible reason why this page should not follow the sources and label this incident a terrorist attack? Gwandon34 (talk) 20:19, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Gwandon34 I am afraid you will get no answer because our opponents are satisfied with the article just as it is. I can only hope that it will turn out at some point that Chérif Chekatt had doubted climate change or drove a diesel car, or both. --Edelseider (talk) 08:16, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Category:Islamic terrorist incidents in 2018

An islamist commits a terrorist act in 2018, while shouting "“Allahu Akbar” before opening fire at a Christmas market. Yet, when I add the category "Islamic terrorist incidents in 2018", it is reverted. Why is that? Jeff5102 (talk) 15:55, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

As explained several times on this page; and still visible above: If you have a reliable source showing that this was 'part of Islamic terrorism', it should be given, and the claim stated, in the body of the article. If not, then templates and categories should not be making that claim. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:57, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

As stated above: The following facts have been established without a doubt, and reported by the BBC, the NYT, the Guardian, CNN, etc.

• Chérif Chekatt's father is a Fiche S Islamic fundamentalist, as are some of Chérif Chekatt's brothers.
• Chérif Chekatt was considered as a gangster-djihadist and had shown radical religious practices in Islam.
• He was a Fiche S, too.
• During the attack, he shouted "Allahu akbar".
• According to his father, Chékatt was fond of ISIL, while his father was not.
• Once Chékatt died, ISIL called him one of their soldiers.
• This claim was taken with scepticism by French authorities and called bogus by Interior Minister, Christopher Castaner.
• A few days later, a USB stick containing Chekatt's pledge of allegiance to ISIL was found, vindicating ISIL's claim.

All this is mentioned in the article. Moreover, Christmas markets are a target of ISIL fighters, just see the 2016 Berlin truck attack, which is categorized under Islamic terrorist incidents in 2016, even though the perpetrator was killed before facing trial too. I really don't see your problem here. Jeff5102 (talk) 16:34, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

And the parent category should be masculinist terrorism, of which this is a schism, lets see if I can apply the same rationale with your copypasta:

• Chérif Chekatt's father is a Fiche S Islamic fundamentalist, as are some of Chérif Chekatt's brothers.
• Chérif Chekatt was considered as a gangster-djihadist and had shown radical religious practices in Islam.
• He was a Fiche S, too.
• During the attack, he shouted "Allahu akbar".
• According to his father, Chékatt was fond of ISIL, while his father was not.
• Once Chékatt died, ISIL called him one of their soldiers.
• This claim was taken with scepticism by French authorities and called bogus by Interior Minister, Christopher Castaner.
• A few days later, a USB stick containing Chekatt's pledge of allegiance to ISIL was found, vindicating ISIL's claim. [stick?, maybe I'm pushing my luck)

Goodness, I've convinced myself with this emboldening of every bit of mannishness, I've got some categories for a million articles! cygnis insignis 17:19, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I completely get that the exercise here is to establish what the sources say and not what we personally think the truth is. That said, surely the following sources establish that this was an Islamist terrorist attack (as opposed to a mere terrorist attack):

The following sources (BBC and CNN) both report that the attacker had pledged allegiance to IS in a video just before the attack: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-46660217 https://edition.cnn.com/2018/12/22/europe/france-strasbourg-attacker-intl/index.html

Furthermore, the following source (the Guardian) reports that French police are characterising the attacker as a 'gangster-jihadist'. The article further acknowledges the attacker's apparent fall into 'Islamic extremism':

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/dec/12/cherif-chekkat-who-is-the-strasbourg-shooting-suspect

Are these sufficient? If not, please educate me as to why. (Genuine question - happy to be educated if I'm wrong).Gwandon34 (talk) 21:10, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

No. See WP:SYNTH. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:36, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Gwandon34, Find some books on the subject, get an understanding of published views, appreciate there are multiple viewpoints and this is not a place for determination of fact. Islamist is not a term I was familiar with until my exposure to US media, is there an accepted definition? cygnis insignis 21:39, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand why you're telling me that WP "is not a place for determination of fact". I already know that. I demonstrated I knew that when I said "I completely get that the exercise here is to establish what the sources say and not what we personally think the truth is". I also do not understand the relevance of telling me to to read books and that "multiple viewpoints" exist, when you do not appear to be suggesting that any books/viewpoints exist that contradict the claim I had advocated. Also, an Islamic or Islamist terrorist attack is a terrorist attack where the terrorist is motivated by what he/she considers to be Islamic principles. What the purpose of that question was, I don't quite follow.

As to my sources, thank you Andy for the link, which I have read. If I understand correctly, my mistake appears to have been that I was reasoning that if an individual pledges allegiance to IS before an attack (IS itself being well-established as an Islamic terrorist group), it therefore followed by definition that said attack was an Islamic attack. However, if I understand you correctly, no matter how mind-blowingly obvious that inference may be in reality, it is still a 'synthesis' and nothing short of a reliable source positively stating that the attacker was definitively motivated by Islam (or that this was otherwise an Islamic attack) will do. Is that a fair analysis?Gwandon34 (talk) 01:33, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Gwandon34, there is some content on the use of "Islamist" at Islamism#Terminology. The premise of what is 'obvious' rests on a definition that does not have a common frame of reference, and it is used as shorthand or 'trigger word' by commentators whose objectivity has been questioned. The emboldening of the term prompted [or triggered] me to question the premise. cygnis insignis 02:23, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, maybe I am just stupid, but:

1. since when is "masculinist terrorism" a thing? And why should masculinist terrorists target Christmas markets?

2. What more evidence is needed to convince some editors here that this indeed is an islamist attack? A notorized statement, perhaps?

3. Given the truckload of websites, documentaries and books stating that the September 11 attacks were an inside job by the Bush-admministration, combined with the lack of a non-disputed statement by the late hijackers themselves: why are these attacks still categorized as "Al-Qaeda attacks"?Jeff5102 (talk) 14:19, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Jeff5102, you are obviously not stupid, just missing how it was an attempt by me to show that Islamist is a subjective and loaded term. And ultimately so is terrorist, it can be narrow or loose, the unqualified use of these terms is suggestive rather than factual. 911 was a terrorist act, I doubt that is in dispute. Who was responsible for executing the act, or ignoring the evidence that it was coming, is the topic in several articles here (I imagine), that there was a conspiracy to commit the act is not in doubt. cygnis insignis 15:12, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. What would you think of this proposal? Let's see how Europol will judge this. After all, Europol was a valid source at the 2018 Paris knife attack and the 2018 Liège attack-articles. Thus, if Europol calls it "Islamist (or jihadist) terrorism", we can include the category.' Maybe another organisation will do too, but we need to discuss that first. It might take a while, but making an encyclopedia is not a work that needs to be done in a hurry. Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 19:34, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Would they use that term, Islamist, when some international organisations (AP news) have deprecated the use of the same term. cygnis insignis 22:16, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Europol would say "jihadist." But for now, Wikipedia uses the term "Islamist" instead in the categories for these assaults. But feel free to start a discussion about the term at the proper place (or the Teahouse, if there isn't one). I don't care that much if it is islamist or jihadist. Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 08:05, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Jeff5102, 'wikipedia' also deliberately avoids those terms, she is fickle in her opinions. cygnis insignis 07:31, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

And, naturally, if it turns out that you are right, we shall make a new "Masculinist terrorist incidents in 2018 for this item. Jeff5102 (talk) 19:37, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I could start by making a nav box, with a taxonomy of all the schisms religious, social, or political, and by year lists going back to … what, the Roman Empire? Again, not serious, a weak attempt at reducing a notion to absurdity. Regards to you too, cygnis insignis 22:16, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I see. For me, putting five persons to death for attending a Christmas market is absurd enough already. But that is me. Regards, Jeff5102 (talk) 08:24, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Petter Nesser of FFI writes at CTC - categorises attack as Islamic terrorism

Petter Nesser, is a researcher at the Norwegian Defence Research Establishment (FFI). He includes the Strasbourg attack in his article about Islamic Terrorism published by the US Combating Terrorism Center. If he includes the attack in this category, enWP editors are obliged to follow sources - not ignore them. And no, enWP editors are under no obligation to wait a really long time for Europol, when other sources are available. AadaamS (talk) 06:11, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

CTC, being an part of the US Army, is not a neutral and impartial source on subjects related to the US military's "war on terror". We don't rely on such "sources". Otherwise we will have to classify all past and present enemies of global powers as "tyrannies", "dictators", etc. — kashmīrī ^TALK 07:06, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Petter Nesser (employee of FFI in Norway) is an expert on terrorism - it is pointless to argue he is not an expert. Has been Nesser's article been criticized by other experts? If any expert has criticized Nesser's article I'm happy to read that criticism if you provide a link. AadaamS (talk) 19:06, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

A WP:RS source should reliable (FFI is a government institutition in Norway, one of the least corrupt countries in the world) and WP:SECONDARY. The attack described in this article happened in France, not the US where the CTC is situated. Nesser is an employee of FFI in Norway. Thus an excellent secondary source. AadaamS (talk) 19:23, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Peter Nesser's opinion does not necessarily align with other sources. We don't take into consideration minority viewpoints unless they are important or corroborated by multiple sources. The guy's employer and corruption level in Norway are really unimportant. Read also WP:RSOPINION. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:59, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

By the way, I am not sure whether being employed by NATO armed forces makes the guy so incredibly impartial in this matter. I assume that whatever he publishes, has to align with his institution's policies and political stance. — kashmīrī ^TALK 22:03, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

kashmiri per does not necessarily align with other sources - which sources are you referring to? Please link them to provide a concrete example relevant to this discussion. Editors are obliged to rank Nesser's authoritative writing over the opinion of anonymous Wikipedia editors. AadaamS (talk) 05:44, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Now established that it was a premeditated attack

• https://www.lemonde.fr/police-justice/article/2019/01/14/l-attentat-de-strasbourg-etait-premedite_5409040_1653578.html
• https://www.dna.fr/actualite/2019/01/14/l-attaque-de-cherif-chekatt-etait-premeditee-selon-le-monde
  

According to the inquiry, Chekatt had been preparing the attack "for several weeks" (À la veille du drame, il était depuis plusieurs semaines en plein préparatifs, selon les derniers développements de l’enquête judiciaire.).
And it seems that both his father and his older brother Sami were supportive ( Quant au père, Ange Chekatt, âgé de 71 ans, il a prévenu son fils, par SMS, qu'il était recherché par les gendarmes, au matin du 11 décembre, qualifiant les forces de l'ordre de "chiens". Il a d'autre part décrit son fils comme un « bon musulman », assure Le Monde.
Reste enfin la question de l'influence qu'aurait pu avoir Sami Chekatt, frère aîné du terroriste, expatrié en Algérie [...], tout en s'inscrivant dans "la mouvance islamiste radicale". "L’exploitation d’un téléphone lui ayant appartenu a par ailleurs mis en exergue des contenus de propagande de l’EI", rappelle le journal.)
Edelseider (talk) 21:14, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

RfC - Categorizing the article - is Petter Nesser at the FFI a reliable source?

Petter Nesser, is a researcher at the Norwegian Defence Research Establishment (FFI). He includes the Strasbourg attack in his article about Islamic Terrorism published by the US Combating Terrorism Center. Because Nesser is an expert this article should be placed in the "Category:Islamic Terrorism". See also opposing arguments in the previous discussion. AadaamS (talk) 05:30, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

One side comment in view of the linked previous exchange. . Although I wish otherwise, the is no requirement that wp:reliable sources be impartial. If there were such a requirement, a good portion of the wp:"Rs's" cited in political articles would be no longer be allowed. This is NOT implying that the discussed source is not impartial, only that a claim of "not impartial" has no basis in current Wikipedia policies and guidelines. North8000 (talk) 01:13, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Guidelines do not mandate impartiality - if there is one, please link it. enWP guidelines recommend sources are secondary and reliable and Nesser's article should fit the bill. What's your position on using Nesser as a source in that regard? AadaamS (talk) 07:45, 5 May 2019 (UTC)