Talk:Seattle Jewish Federation shooting

Moving article

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

Islam and antisemitism?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sorry George, I disagree. First, this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alexwoods, I don't understand why you think my argument is "absurd". Since when is a lunatic's interpretation of Islam an authentic one? Furthermore, there is evidence that he had converted to Christianity before this shooting.[1] I'm not sure if he ever converted back.Bless sins 21:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Islam and antisemitism" categorization

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

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is there a response? I don't mind the addition of particular categories, as long as we're fair to all religions.Bless sins (talk) 02:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

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

Image:Spi frontpage cropped 1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 19:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Motivation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Seattle Jewish Federation shooting/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: AIRcorn (talk) 06:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I can work through this one over the next week or so. I can tell straight away that the lead is too short per WP:LEAD. I don't review the lead until last so if you want to add any more information in the next couple of days that won't interfere with my review. AIRcorn (talk) 06:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, finished my first read through. I have left some comments below. I see this as a collaborative process and you can question any of the comments. If we can't come to an agreement on any points we can seek a second opinion. AIRcorn (talk) 12:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

GA criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   More needed on lead. A few prose issues under comments.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   References are present and reliable enough. There are a few statements I could not find in the references.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Broadness is fine, but there are a few occasions where it tends to lose focus. It repeats itself a bit too.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   A few issues here.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments

Events

• Seattle Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske alleged that the suspect, Naveed Afzal Haq, had selected his target by researching "something Jewish" on the Internet. Why does it say suspect? Would change "target" to the name of the place as this is the first sentence anyone skipping the lead would read.
• Haq is said to have legally purchased two semi-automatic handguns in Tri-Cities area stores, receiving the weapons on July 27, 2006, after the mandatory waiting period had expired. Who said? What are Tri-Cities?
• Haq allegedly received a traffic ticket on the way to the shooting, but did nothing to arouse the officer's suspicions. Why allegedly? The source does not suggest there is any doubt.
• With a gun to her back, Haq reportedly told the girl, "Open the door," and "careful", as she was buzzed into the building. Haq then said, "I'm only doing this for a statement," and proceeded to follow the girl up the stairs to the second floor. This is redundant with the previous sentence.
• Her niece, in the bathroom, heard her and dialed 911. Heard her. Should it not be heard the gunshot?
• Witnesses reported that Haq began shouting "I'm a Muslim American; I'm angry at Israel" before he began his shooting spree. I would put the appropriate reference right after this sentence. Muslim American should not be linked if it is in a quotation.
• Haq is reported to have walked down the hallway, shooting into offices as he passed by. Haq then shot three more women in the abdomen: Layla Bush, Stumbo, and Christina Rexroad. From reading the source these two sentences are not clear. The source suggests that he shot the women while walking through the offices. If so "then" does not work. Maybe the sentences should be combined.
• Pamela Waechter received a gunshot in the chest. More context needs to be given to this sentence.
• As the wounded Waechter attempted to flee down a flight of stairs, Haq allegedly reached over the railing and shot her for the second time in the head, killing her. Wording is too close to the source, except the source says "up" the stairs not down.
• Haq fired at her abdomen, but the bullet missed, Not in the source
• There is a large quote and then most of the same information is then repeated in the next paragraph, some with similar quotes. Feels like overkill. I like the summarised info better, just because he rants against Jews does not mean we have to repeat it word-for-word. A few selected words could be quoted to supplement the summary if necessary.
• At 10:38 PM he was booked into King County Jail on one count of investigation of homicide and five counts of investigation of attempted murder "on one count of investigation of homicide" is awkward. Earlier the article uses p.m. Should be consistent.
• After the shooting, a SWAT team entered the building, looking for other victims or suspects Not sure what the other refers to. Were there victims outside the building?

Legal proceedings

• King County, Washington District Court Judge Barbara Linde found that the King County Prosecuting Attorney's Office had probable cause to charge Haq with one count of murder and five counts of attempted murder. Don't need King County twice in this sentence.
• The prosecution, however, ultimately decided not to seek the death penalty because of Haq's history of mental illness. Needs a reference and the prose could be tightened up
• One of the most difficult decisions faced by King County Prosecutor Norm Maleng was whether to charge Haq with the death penalty. One of the most difficult decisions is original research as no where in the reference does it suggest that it was difficult decision.
• Additionally, prosecutors in Washington are required to consider "mitigating factors" when deciding whether to seek the death penalty. Not in citation
• His second trial commenced in late 2009, and he was found guilty on all counts, including aggravated first-degree murder, on December 15, 2009. Does all accounts include the Carol Goldman attempted murder he was found not guilty of previously?

Victims

• Five of the women were taken to Harborview Medical Center, where three were initially listed in critical condition and two in satisfactory condition, with one of the victims 17 weeks pregnant. Not sure why the pregnancy is tacked on at the end like that?
• Waechter was shot first in the chest and then in the head while she was fleeing. This has already been mentioned in better detail.
• Christina Rexroad, a 29-year-old bookkeeper[26] for the Federation and resident of Everett, Washington and Cheryl Stumbo, the Federation's 43-year-old[18] non-Jewish director of marketing and communications, were shot in the abdomen and critically wounded. Not sure "and resident of Everett, Washington" is necessary, plus it reads awkward with the second and close by.
• As of August 28, 2006 Bush, who is not Jewish, but wanted to work for charitable organizations, remained hospitalized with a bullet indefinitely lodged in her spine. This is out of date now. Can it be updated?
• 35-year-old Carol Goldman was shot in the knee. Would either reword or spell out 35 so the sentence does not start with a number.
• The sixth victim was Dayna Klein, a 37-year-old pregnant woman responsible for development and major gifts to the organization. What does development and major gifts to the organization mean? Is there a grammatical error?

Jewish Federation

• Jewish Federations are social service organizations that raise and distribute money for Jewish causes, particularly in their local communities, but also in Israel, and elsewhere in the world. Don't need "but also in Israel" if it says elswhere in the world.
• The Federation was the organizer of a rally on July 23, 2006 in support of Israel during the 2006 Lebanon war Have to agree with the tag. Why is this relevant to the shooting? Unless he used this as motivation, and reliable sources confirm this, it should probably go.

Reaction

• Bit of a quote farm here. Understandable as it is the easiest way to ensure accuracy, but it is a struggle to read.
• Coincidentally, the July 2006 Seattle Jewish Federation shooting occurred on the same day as another major antisemitic incident in America, the Mel Gibson DUI incident, though, according to one opinion piece, the deadly attack received far less media coverage than the Gibson DUI incident. This is a stretch. Opinion pieces should not be used for reaction and there is no direct tie between the two.
• The large joint statement should be either turned into prose or in a block quote.

Motivation

• This section consists almost solely of quotes. How were they chosen?
  • The background behind this is that some commentators in the media (such as Daniel Pipes) argued that this case and a few others (including one at the University of North Carolina[2]) were genuine acts of Islamist terrorism and that by classifying these incidents as hate crimes or the work of a mentally unstable lone gunman, the government was essentially ignoring or downplaying the threat of Islamist terrorism out of a desire for political correctness. On the other hand, the police and others in the media have argued that Haq was a mentally ill individual and that there wasn't any kind of Islamist plot or indoctrination here, he just made statements about Israel and the Jews because that's what his mind happened to seize on in its deluded condition. I think the quote from the prosecutor and the two quotes from the media were chosen in order to show this debate fairly - by giving a voice to those commenters who think this shooting should be thought of as an act of Islamic terrorism, but also by showing that this isn't the official opinion and that others disagree. I think we can do a better job of presenting the background to the debate here. I think The Stranger quote summarizes that particular viewpoint nicely, while the Stillwell quote might be tweaked a bit or replaced, maybe to explain this background a little better. GabrielF (talk) 17:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
    • I understand quotes are probably necessary as this is controversial area, but I was hoping they could be shortened some. They made reading this section a bit of a chore and are a little bit lazy. If the most controversial/important comments could be quoted with the rest provided in context it would greatly improve this article. Unimportant details or points established earlier could be omitted. I had a go at the Stillwell one as a possible example (this is just an example you can tweak or ignore it as you wish): Cinnamon Stillwell, from the conservative organization Campus Watch, wrote that while Seattle's Mayor Greg Nickels statement about it being "a purposeful, hateful act, as far as we know by an individual acting on his own" may be true, the attempt to "separate Haq's actions from the larger context of the war on terrorism is tunnel vision at its worst." Maybe something similar from Pipes could also be added? I don't know of any particular guidelines that address the use of quotes at GA (maybe something under prose - I will have a thorough look). The biggest concern I can think of here is avoiding WP:Undue by establishing why certain individuals/organizations are important enough to be quoted and whether the chosen quotes are not out of context. Your explanation above helps a lot in that regard, but I will also do some extra research to satisfy myself that representation is relatively balanced. AIRcorn (talk) 08:27, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• If the quotes are kept the wikilinks need to be removed.

See Also

• Why is "List of events named massacre" in the See Also? It does not contain a link here and seems POV.
  • I agree, that link is a bit strange since the word "massacre" is not used in this article. I've removed the link. GabrielF (talk) 13:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

References

• Jacoby, Jeff (2006-08-06). "A tale of 2 stories about anti-Semitism". The Boston Globe. Retrieved 2007-06-27. DAB "Jacoby, Jeff".

Lead

• Like I mentioned earlier it is a bit thin. Could mention more about the victims. More details about the event (that he gave himself up after talking to the police). More about the legal proceedings (Death penalty or Life imprisonment, Mental issues, Mistrial etc). Should be a solid two paragraphs at least.

Progress

There have been no comments here for three weeks. Are you planning on concluding the review. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:13, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Have not heard from the nominator for a while so regretfully have n o choice but to fail this. AIRcorn (talk) 09:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)