Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Ramadan attacks - Wikipedia


Article Images
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result was delete. Consensus is that this is original research by synthesis. This does not preclude mention of these attacks, subject to editors' consensus, in appropriate other articles such as articles about Ramadan or lists of terrorist attacks.  Sandstein  17:08, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Ramadan attacks

2016 Ramadan attacks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm sorry, but this looks like a textbook case of both WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. There is no concrete evidence to prove that any of the attacks listed were intentionally set to occur during Ramadan by ISIL. The fact that any of them occurred during Ramadan seems either circumstantial and/or opportunistic on the offenders' part. To top it off, at least one attack listed is more or less ISIL-inspired and not directly connected to ISIL itself (there's a big difference to that diction). Parsley Man (talk) 03:59, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I also understand that the 2015 Ramadan attacks article is of a similar nature to this article, but while the deletion discussion ruled that the article should indeed be kept, it was also mentioned that there was also "strong support for the article title being moved but no clear consensus on the target to be moved to", seemingly indicating (to me, at least) that the participants agreed to rename the article to avoid the Ramadan association. (I did not bother to read the whole discussion, though, so I'm not sure if they did indeed reach that agreement on that basis.) However, a renaming discussion has yet to begin on the article's talk page, as also dictated by the deletion discussion, so I'm not sure what happened there. Parsley Man (talk) 03:59, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning toward delete - Currently the list suffers from OR. The inclusion criteria are unclear: (1) is this a list of any attack during Ramadan (which it currently appears to be) or (2) a list of Islamist attacks deliberately committed during Ramadan for ideological reasons (what I think it's meant to be). If the latter, it would be hard to for sources to specify that detailed level of motive. Some of the current sources used simply list Islamist (or possible Islamist) attacks occurring during Ramadan. If the intent is for the former, then it's redundant with List of Islamist terrorist attacks. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:26, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to User:EvergreenFir, this is an article, not a list, about the decision by Hamas, ISIS (and possibly other groups) to promote Ramadan as a month especially appropriate for terror attacks and to both launch a density of such attacks during Ramadan and use social media to persuade unaffiliated sympathizers to launch lone-wolf terrorist attacks during Ramadan 2016 (as was done in 2015 on a smaller scale.) In enumerating the attacks, I included ONLY such attacks as were discussed by major media (CNN, New York Times, Al Jazeera, Times of Israel) as inspired or carried out by a jihadist organization (ISIS, Hamas) that had publicly and specifically announced a program of sponsoring and attempting to inspire Islamist attacks duirng Ramadan 2016.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:32, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Judging by the lede of this article, as well as the "Background" section, I'm pretty sure it's meant to be the latter. Parsley Man (talk) 05:12, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:32, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:32, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:32, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A number of sources mention the anniversary of the terrorist "caliphate" declaration
  • heavy.com "New ISIS Video Celebrates 2 Year ‘Anniversary’ of Islamic State With Executions"
  • alalam.ir (note graphic - also Iranian state owned) ISIS Celebrates 2-Year Anniversary With Executions
  • vocativ article mentions anniversary
  • mirror.co.uk Istanbul Ataturk Airport terror attack comes on second anniversary of ISIS declaring Islamic State Caliphate - also foxnews.com mentions the date link.
  • ctc.usma.edu "Al-Adnani ratcheted up threats in an audiotape released in May calling for Islamic State fighters and followers to intensify their efforts to hit the West during the month of Ramadan, which starts three days before Euro 2016 and coincides almost exactly with the tournament.[14] Last year the Islamic State had told its followers they would receive 10 times the heavenly rewards for carrying out attacks during the Islamic holy month.[15]"
2015
  • bloomberg quote "Islamic State is preparing to mark the first anniversary on Monday of its self-declared caliphate in Iraq and Syria."
  • reuters "Islamic State calls for attacks on the West during Ramadan in audio message"
  • independent.co.uk Isis expected to carry out 'more violence, more advances, more attacks' as one year anniversary of Islamic State declaration approaches

2015 prediction

I'll try to look up more academic articles. At risk of a large shitfight, I'd propose merging this with the 2015 ramadan attacks article into something on ISIS anniversary attacks, mentioning both years. If this article gets nuked, I'd propose adding 1+ paragraph to the 2015 ramadan attacks article with mention of parallels to 2016. -- Callinus (talk) 08:25, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that most of the sourcing is saying only that the attacks occurred during Ramadan. This proves very little other than that the attacks occurred during Ramadan. The looney tunes who do this sort of thing are quite capable of doing it at other times of year; the 9/11 attacks did not occur during Ramadan, which was in November/December 2001.[3]--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:34, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ianmacm: read the Institute for the Study of War article PDF - they make a specific prediction into the future that multiple, simultaneous attacks will be co-ordinated by one, specific terror group. The prediction came true. Hawkish security analysts note that the precursor of ISIS (specific organization) carried out more bombings with a greater death toll during Ramadan in previous years, and predicted that simultaneous attacks would be orchestrated. The observation by the analysts is not that specific terror groups are unable to carry out attacks at other times, but only that attacks increase during Ramadan - they were correct for 2015.
I'd support the removal of all non-ISIS stuff, with better sourcing pointing out that ISIS and its precursors have a history of attacks during Ramadan. -- Callinus (talk) 08:47, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • E.M.Gregory Hamas "are cited as originator of the idea of promoting Ramadan as an month of jihad" - That comes from Maajid's opinion piece in the Daily Beast, it would be better to have academic/secondary sources backing it up. -- Callinus (talk) 14:20, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes; obviously. An example of why it necessary to give articles a chance to grow instead of rushing them to deletion. And of why AFD is argued according to what is available on a topic, not what is already on the page. Just imagine if editors put the time into expanding and sourcing articles on terrorism that is now put into attempting to delete them.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:25, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine it would give silly ideas that should have died earlier an air of credibility. No thanks. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:41, July 4, 2016 (UTC)
ISIL is to some extent all mouth and no trousers, because they take credit for attacks even when they had nothing to do with them. There really does need to be strong RS before saying that an attack was caused by Ramadan when it is now happening practically every week. Otherwise, all it does is to pander to the "Islam is a violent religion" brigade.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:50, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ianmacm: I've made some changes to address the "caused by Ramadan" issue. I've taken the Kurdistan Freedom Falcons out, as they're an ethnic separatist group and no sourcing links them to Ramadan at all. "they take credit for attacks even when they had nothing to do with them" - yes that happened with Orlando.
I think the article is salvageable, if the terror attacks are listed by the group, and only includes groups that have stated support for attacks during Ramadan. -- Callinus (talk) 14:05, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reality is ISIS have killed more people before Ramadan[4] and they don't miss any opportunity to brainwash, motivate and call for attacks for example they called for attacks after Brexit, they called for attacks during summer and so on.--Ferpalnum (talk) 15:37, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, cautiously per E.M. Gregory's arguments. Someone should note, however, that the premise in the nominator's original comments that the article's title mentions nothing about ISIS even though the nominator makes several mentions of how ISIS isn't confirmed to be the source of all the terrorist attacks that have taken place this year during Ramadan. As the article title shows, the focus of the article isn't (nor should it be) ISIS, but the attacks performed as terrorism during Ramadan, 2016. I see synth being used as an argument by the nom as well, but invoking ISIS as part of his argument for deletion is synth, in my opinion. That in mind, the nomination argument for deletion is faulty from the get go as it puts focus on something the article title doesn't indicate.
Keep the article, keep synth out of it, stick to the facts, and keep the focus of the article on the title itself. Possible rename to 2016 Islamic terror attacks during Ramadan. Because, as it has been pointed out, at least one terror group did promise attacks would occur during Ramadan this year. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:02, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To rename the article in such a way is very redundant, since we already have a bunch of articles such as List of Islamist terrorist attacks, which do the job and organize it perfectly. What's next? 2016 Islamist terrorist attacks during Monday? Parsley Man (talk) 16:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Winkelvi: So if the terror group promises an attack during holiday season in Europe and if someone commit any attack during that time and pledge allegiance to ISIS then will you create a separate article for that? I think, this new article is not needed since there is already an article List of Islamist terrorist attacks. Ferpalnum (talk) 16:22, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to point out that the lede itself specifically refers to ISIL and a statement from its leader to "make it, with God's permission, a month of pain for infidels everywhere." Hence my mention of ISIL in my original comment. I also see that the lede also mentioned Hamas, which I didn't notice earlier. If it's an edit implemented after the deletion nomination, I don't know. Parsley Man (talk) 16:30, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I chose article name as a simple echo of 2015 Ramadan attacks, an article that has been stable for a year.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:46, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also note the tidbit I mentioned in my original comment that there was a consensus in the 2015 Ramadan attacks' deletion discussion to rename said article, but that no such discussion has started for some reason. I'm debating if I should start that now, since we're now talking about it. Parsley Man (talk) 16:57, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, there was such a rename discussion; it was closed as "no consensus." However, there was No consensus to rename at the AFD. What actually happened is that the closing editor wrote: "strong support for the article title being moved but no clear consensus on the target to be moved to." If you want to propose a new name, the appropriate place to do so is on the talk page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:19, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am aware the consensus was worded that way; look at my original comment. Parsley Man (talk) 17:37, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
IMO 2015 Bloody Friday is more appropriate as a title for the 2015 Ramadan attack article. Ferpalnum (talk) 17:22, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See the discussion here: [10]. Closed, not renamed.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:55, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Said discussion was closed with no consensus. It's perfectly not inappropriate to start it up again. Said discussion also took place at the same time as the main article's deletion discussion. Parsley Man (talk) 18:23, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Im not sure if youre serious, but synthesis doesnt mean that each statement is not reliably sourced. Can you read WP:SYNTH and then if you respond to that Ill address your concern. nableezy - 16:45, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nothing" is synthesized in the sense that both the assertion that there has been a deliberate series of Ramadan attacks is reliably sourced, and because each attack in the article is reliably sourced to news articles, analysts, or official sources that describe it either as specifically planned to take place during Ramadan 2016; or (as in Thailand) as part of an uptick in attacks during Ramadan 2016 (Thailand, specifically, has previously had negotiated Ramadan cease-fires); or as part of a Ramadan wave of attacks inspired by jihad organizations (ISIS, Hamas,) that issued public calls to Muslims urging them to kill infidels during Ramadan 2016 (thank heaven so few Muslims heed these calls - but the point here is that a handful did). It is not SYNTH because these linkages are not made by me or other WP editors, they are made by CNN, Time Magazine, the New York Times, Al Arabiya, etc.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Im sorry, but you dont seem to get the problem here. These are events that seem to have little to do with one another. Youre essentially saying any attack by a Muslim during Ramadan is connected. Hamas and ISIS arent even a little bit the same, the attack on a settlement in the West Bank and in Israel are part of another long running violent conflict, one that I think is obvious to most people goes back further than the start of Ramadan this year. You are combining multiple topics into one overarching one. That is synthesis. The NY Times piece about ISIS calling for attacks in Ramadan doesnt change that. nableezy - 00:15, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both ISIS and Hamas are openly dedicated to the use of violent attacks on civilians to further the jihadist goal of imposing an Islamist future. Both organizations urged their followers to carry out attacks on infidels during Ramadan 2016.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:30, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
lol wut? If you say so. nableezy - 00:32, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just as they do during any other important or semi-important event? ansh666 00:34, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The term "Ramadan attacks" itself is a WP:NEO. The article even lists attacks which has nothing to do with the Ramadan but occurred during June 2016. I have left messages for this on the article's talk page. Ferpalnum (talk) 17:45, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Requesting you to read WP:NEO again. This is another clear case of WP:CHERRY. The article only uses the title Ramadan Attacks on Three Continents but no where in the news it mention anything on Ramadan attacks. But it does mention that no clear indications yet that the attacks were coordinated. Ferpalnum (talk) 12:05, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: As far as we all know, all attacks listed here did happened during the month of Ramadan whether if it was intentional by the attackers or not. Yes, the article does appear to be a WP:SYNTH, So I suggest that we can keep this article as an list of attacks occurred in Ramadan 2016. Ayub407talk 21:08, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Except that's too broad. It would have to be Islamist terrorist attacks during Ramadan 2016. But that inclusion criteria is questionable and redundant with List of Islamist terrorist attacks. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:26, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Then the article should be about the call for attacks itself, not a list of attacks that seems to run afoul of SYNTH. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:27, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget "mere". As I said there, I'm talking about stuff that happens, not stuff people say. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:32, July 5, 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep – From the NY Times,[13]
"Ramadan, a holy month for Muslims dedicated to fasting and prayer, has historically been a time when both Al Qaeda and now the Islamic State have escalated attacks."
--Bob K31416 (talk) 22:47, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Then that should be something that can be noted in the Ramadan article, not demonstrated with this article. There is a "crime rates" section. We could merge all the necessary information there. Or we could probably start a brand-new section describing an apparent link to Ramadan and Islamic terrorism. My point is, we don't need a redundant article(s) like this one whose purpose is already technically fulfilled by the List of Islamist terrorist attacks article and sub-articles. Parsley Man (talk) 03:19, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that your argument is based on things that don't exist in Wikipedia and may not ever exist. You might try adding your proposals yourself, although you might encounter the same resistance over there that the present list is encountering here. --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:56, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The key difference is that many sources connect those attacks, name it, and discuss the separate attacks as one event, in this case, no one connects these attacks or statements except for a wikipedia editor. Sepsis II (talk) 01:17, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Except for a wikipedia editor" and The New York Times and countless others (also this NYT article. -- Callinus (talk) 05:42, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cold comfort for the hundreds of families that lost loved ones the past month.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 04:44, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The mainstream media is not infallible, and if a person submitted an academic paper to a journal for review, based on the principle that "A occurred at the same time as B, therefore A was linked to B", it would be rejected on the grounds of Correlation does not imply causation. This is a common logical fallacy and an easy mistake to make, particularly in medical research. Simply listing attacks that occurred during Ramadan is misleading.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:53, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
ianmacm please re-read the article in its current state. Note the 2016 Saudi Arabia bombings were carried out by ISIL. -- Callinus (talk) 06:05, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but someone still insists on adding the Orlando shooting despite the obvious problems with WP:SYNTH, WP:COATRACK and WP:CHERRY.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:13, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Ramadan is not in any way a holiday season. And going by reliable sources is not cherry picking.--Vaza12 (talk) 15:23, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
E.M.Gregory should assume good faith. He has accused me of being a sockpuppet, which simply isn't true. The statement that "Ferpalnum has made few or no other edits outside this topic" isn't really accurate either. There needs to be very good evidence before accusing a person of being a sockpuppet, or of acting in bad faith.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:20, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Summing up: I created this article with solid sourcing, prompted by a 3 July article in the New York Times ISIS Uses Ramadan as Calling for New Terrorist Attacks [17]. Although I have continued to build the article, other editors have brought it to the point where it passes not only WP:GNG but also WP:HEY. The most cogent of the objections raised above (ignoring those of the IDONTLIKE IT type) argue for a merger into the List of Islamist terror attacks, on the grounds that insufficient "linkage" of these attacks exists. While it is difficult to know what would completely satisfy this demand, short of a signed affidavit from Abu Muhammad al-Adnani, it is in fact sufficient that there were announced intentions by major Islamist terrorist organizations to make this a bloody Ramadan, and there is solid evidence that terror attacks were both inspired by and carried out by jihadist Islamist organizations. Moreover, while my WP:CRYSTAL ball informs me scholarly discussion is likely to follow this memorably bloody Ramadan, and the 2015 Ramadan attacks, scholarly sources are not strictly necessary: RS are - and we have them. Current events articles are necessarily begun while an event is current, scholarly analysis follows. It is now over 24 hours since the last delete iVote was cast. That is probably due to the horrific fact that "the Muslim holy month of Ramadan came to an especially bloody conclusion." [18] AP report published by ABC News, tragically validating this article. In the prayerful hope of a better year to come, and with kudos to the several editors who continue to upgrade and improve the article, most notable User:Callinus, I urge any editor with sincere doubts about the notability of this topic to click on a few of the sources now in the article - starting at the top of the references section.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:51, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:SYNTH per Nableezy. E.M.Gregory did not adequately address this complaint. I looked at the article. The Hamas section is totally composed of WP:OR connecting statements by Hamas with events that, in the reportage, have not been shown to be Hamas operations. Is there any proof that this Ramadan witnessed an upswing in such attacks, which are as regular throughout the year as the attacks described here?( Israeli defense force shootings of civilians in the West Bank) Nishidani (talk) 09:18, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes,a worldwide uptick during Ramadan (a month) is sourced to a slight uptick at the end of Ramadan in one small area of the world covered, over 3 days, and one of the incidents in the 3 has, today, been dismissed as an Israeli extrajudicial killing of a pregnant woman. There was no one in the room when she was shot from the door, according to the video. Your report came out before this independent item.Nishidani (talk) 10:18, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Never read the headlines. Body says "Stabbing, shooting and car-ramming attacks by Palestinians against Israelis have been ever-present since a wave of violence began in October 2015", which only "somewhat calmed" for an unspecified period. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:27, July 6, 2016 (UTC)
The simplest neutral way to get all this information in is to drop the hysterical anti-Arab/Islamic profiling in dozens of numerous articles, and just note them in a list, as is being done from 2015 for just one area (Palestine/Israel) at List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, January–June 2015 through to now. Everyone can see the context, every entry is neutral, both sides are covered, and NPOV is observed.Nishidani (talk) 10:46, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Seems Moore's "somewhat calmed" bit was somewhat imaginary. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:06, July 6, 2016 (UTC)
You know who really tend to go kill-crazy in the summer then lay dormant in sleeper cells? Fucking bears, man. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:05, July 6, 2016 (UTC)
  • Okay, some of your sources are not RS. A section of Muslims outraged because ISIS attacking in the name of their religion while killing more Muslims. ISIS attacked their holy place Medina so some Muslims are trying to defend their religion and calling ISIS as non-Islamic. A section of people (both Muslims and non-Muslims) in Muslim majority country think there should be more global outrage such as according to Michel Kilo, a Christian in Syria “All this crazy violence has a goal, to create a backlash against Muslims, divide societies and make Sunnis feel that no matter what happens, they don’t have any other option.” Similarly, Razan Hasan of Baghdad posted Why isn’t #PrayForIraq trending?. Similarly Muslims were outraged when according to them media didn't cover their anti-isis march in London.[31],[32],[33] etc. Now, what is the significance of these with the article in question? Ferpalnum (talk) 14:46, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"ISIS FORECAST: RAMADAN 2016" (PDF). Institute for the Study of War. May 2016.
Ibrahim, Ayman. "For ISIS, a competing vision of Ramadan as a month of conquest and jihad". RNS. Retrieved 4 July 2016.
Bergen, Peter (3 July 2016). "ISIS' Ramadan terror campaign". CNN. Retrieved 3 July 2016.
Cruickshank, Paul (13 June 2016). "Orlando shooting follows ISIS call for U.S. Ramadan attacks". CNN. Retrieved 3 July 2016.
Naawaz, Maajid (2 July 2016). "From Orlando to Bangladesh, A Blood-Soaked Ramadan". The Daily Beast. Retrieved 3 July 2016.
Newbauer, Sigurd (4 July 2016). "Has Ramadan 2016 been one of the bloodiest in modern history?". Al Arabiya. Retrieved 4 July 2016.
"One Year of Islamic State 'Caliphate': How will Isis Mark First 'Anniversary' This Ramadan?".
"Ramadan Bombings in Yemen: Part of ISIS's Global Strategy? - Critical Threats".
Keating, Fiona (4 July 2016). "Isis Eid onslaught: Spate of attacks aimed at inflicting a 'month of pain for infidels; Islamic State is using Ramadan as a symbolic marker to inspire and motivate their followers to launch deadly strikes". International Business Times. Retrieved 5 July 2016.
Maher, Shiraz (5 July 2016). "Why so-called Islamic State chooses to bomb during Ramadan". BBC. Retrieved 5 July 2016.
Chafets, Zev (14 June 2016). "Ramadan and the terror threat". Fox News. Retrieved 4 July 2016.
Taylor, Adam (26 June 2016). "Ramadan had brought fears of new Islamic State attacks". Washington Post. Retrieved 4 July 2016.
"A look at bloody attacks around the world this Ramadan". Fox News. Associated Press. 6 July 2016. Retrieved 6 July 2016.
"More than 100 killed in Baghdad Ramadan bombings". CBS News.
"Kuwait 'foils ISIL attack plot' during Ramadan". Al Jazeera. 4 July 2016. Retrieved 4 July 2016.
"On eve of Tel Aviv terror attack, Hamas called Ramadan 'month of jihad'". Times of Israel. 12 June 2016. Retrieved 4 July 2016.
Moore, Jack (1 July 2016). "Uptick in Stabbing Attacks by Palestinians as End of Ramadan Nears". Newsweek. Retrieved 3 July 2016.
"2 terrorists kill 4 in Tel Aviv; Hamas vows more Ramadan attacks". Times of Israel. 8 June 2016. Retrieved 3 July 2016.
Gross, Judah (1 July 2016). "Jerusalem police on alert for final Friday of Ramadan". Times of Israel. Retrieved 5 July 2016.
Iyengar, Rishi (5 July 2016). "Latest in the Spate of Worldwide Ramadan Attacks: Thailand". Time magazine. Retrieved 5 July 2016.
"Series of bombings in south Thailand mark Ramadan end". AsiaOne. 5 July 2016. Retrieved 5 July 2016.
"Attack on holy city of Medina appalls Muslims amid Ramadan violence". AP/CNN.
"Ramadan attacks show evil nature of Islamic State, says Shanmugam". Today/Mediacorp Press Ltd.
--Bob K31416 (talk) 15:26, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as obvious synth. Bob K31416, please refrain from dropping every single possible news article in here that says there were attacks during Ramadan. That there were doesn't prove there is such a thing as Ramadan attacks in any meaningful way, and you're kind of cluttering up the page here. BTW, as long as we're following the 24-hour news cycle instead of writing less...flexible text on less recent subject, we're going to have these kinds of timesinks. All the time. Drmies (talk) 16:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not "obvious" SYNTH to describe the Ramadan attacks as a group when reliable sources so describe them. It is, however, somewhat condescending for Anglophones to describe as SYNTH a phenomenon that Muslims [34] view as a coherent [35] event [36]. User:Bob K31416's links make a strong case that it is not SYNTH at all. E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:30, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes it is, and the sources describe them as taking place during Ramadan. That doesn't mean that somehow they had to happen during Ramadan or that they were coordinated during Ramadan. And don't get me started on this condescension remark, which pits Anglophones against Muslims in one of the most curious pairings I've ever seen (outside of the worldview of some places on the internet where Anglophone = white = Christian = good = not Muslim). Drmies (talk) 16:53, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies, Please give the excerpt from WP:SYNTH that you are using and show how it applies to any point that you may be making. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:05, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that you refuse to give the excerpt from WP:SYNTH that you are using and show how it applies, your claims don't carry much weight. However, I still suggest that you comply with my request so that we can work together to settle this according to Wikipedia policy. Thanks again. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:26, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Seconding User:Bob K31416's request for editors claiming WP:SYNTH to bring specific instances of alleged SYNTH either here or to the article's talk page. From my perspective, the difficulty with the claim is "Ramadan attacks" as described in the lede are sourced in the body of the text to reliable media. See today's news,"What's behind Ramadan terror attacks?" [37] and, "Ramadan attacks point to Isis’s deadly reach" [38].E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:43, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both of you really need manners and clue. Bob K31416, it's your patronizing comments that take away from any policy-based argument you might be making, but if you insist, it's pretty much the first sentence of the policy, and then the rest. If you refuse to build an argument of your own, if all you do--besides badgering--is list things where your search terms are connected, that's all you. But, E.M. Gregory, kindly explain that the last headline, for instance, belongs to an article that includes all the attacks you've collected in your synthy article; moreover, kindly prove to me that it is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, in reliable, well-researched sources--not today's headline--that we shouldn't call your article 2016 Terrorist attacks dubbed Ramadan attacks in the news even without proof that all of them are essentially connected. Drmies (talk) 20:44, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article follows the many reliable sources it cites, including multiple, reliable sources describing the parallel paths and inter-related ideologies by which violent Islamist groups in widely-separated parts of the world that have not only argued that Ramadan is a month designated by God for violent attacks, urged such attacks, and directed such attacks.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:18, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drmies, Here's the WP:SYNTH first sentence that you referred to, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources."
Please give an excerpt from the 2016 Ramadan attacks article and explain how it does not comply with this sentence. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:39, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, People need to know from an unbiased source what is or is not going on, there is nothing vile or offensive here unless you are a leftist activist, Muslim or ISIS / ISIL supporter. Many people seam to prefer to keep the negatives hidden. Deletion smacks LOUDLY of censorship. TayFam (talk) 23:12, 6 July 2016 (UTC) — TayFam (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Wait, I always thought a Muslim was wayyy worse than being a leftist. Like, omg, how can you even put the two in the same sentence? nableezy - 01:05, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Nableezy: Got that beat. I've been called a Conservative Leftist Muslim Jew! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:07, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's NOTHING, EvergreenFir. GorillaWarfare and I are Lesbian Feminist Jewish Gatekeepers. I think--I may have forgotten a Bad Name. Drmies (talk) 21:08, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies: No, we are paid lesbian Jewish gatekeepers. Not feminists. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:30, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Don't people tire of this POV-pushing farce via language manipulation to get at another religion, as usual Islam? Or is is that editors are so anaesthetized to the spin of the Western press they just miss it? The way E.M. Gregory is pushing, it's like a covey of editors noting that names for many Israeli war operations are drawn from biblical imagery, and therefore some idiot might feel entitled to push for renaming Gaza War (2008–09) which was named to celebrate the Jewish festival of Hanukkah that coincided with it, as the Hanukkah War ( See Ethan Perlson, 'Why Israel Named Its Gaza War After a Hanukkah Poem,' Daily Beast 30 December 2008)) It's quite disgraceful to observe how this subtle, slow creep of Islamophobia is being stuck into a range of articles by the usual POV Islam =violence editor. Nishidani (talk) 20:00, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
-One reason this article exists is because of the topic's notability, as demonstrated by the number of reliable sources. Various editors have presented such sources here and in the article. See for example my message of 15:26, 6 July 2016 above.
-The lists in your message don't mention Ramadan, except for a mention in one incident in the first list. (This can be checked by using the edit-find feature of a browser.) They also didn't contain information about the general aspects of the 2016 Ramadan attacks.
-I checked the article 2016 Ramadan attacks for the remark in your message about the lead and background being nearly identical and it wasn't true.
-Regarding purpose, this article is a place for a consolidated source of information for the 2016 Ramadan attacks that includes a discussion of aspects of some of the attacks taken together.
--Bob K31416 (talk) 22:03, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't mention Ramadan? We can simply add a paragraph and make it mention Ramadan. Tell me whats the difference between the lead and the background section? They both are just quoting connections and opinions by people, its the same content, its just more elaborated. More elaborated in a way that gives it undue weight to be in an separate article. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:05, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The connection is that they happened in Ramadan. Ramadan this year largely corresponded with June. The article might as well be titled June 2016 attacks. The problem with this article, and with so many articles created with the same motivation, is that it uses a reporting piece as though it were measured analysis. And from that it seeks to make the most tenuous connection between entirely unrelated events based on single lines in news reports. Do you actually think there is any connection at all between a stabbing in an Israeli settlement in the West Bank with a bombing at an airport in Istanbul with a shooting of a club in Orlando? I mean besides the connection of Muslim and Ramadan? Its a completely arbitrary grouping of attacks, making connections that simply arent there (the response on Hamas and ISIS above was particularly absurd and deserves special recognition). Yall combining military attacks by an actual definable group of people (ISIS attacks on Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon) with "ISIS-inspired" attacks by people who have no connection to each other other than a website they both may have visited in the last year (France, Orlando) with attacks praised by militant groups such as Hamas (Tel Aviv wasnt carried out by Hamas, but because they praised it that means what exactly?) with bombings that are said to have "unclear motivations"? If it's unclear why exactly is it in an article that yall claim shows a connection between events? Or is it that the connection is the more obvious Muslim+Ramadan+violence? I for the life of me cant even understand the point of making articles like this. Each of these attacks merits and has its own article. Why exactly must there be some connection, real or imagined, also be covered in a separate article? otherwise you may as well start 2016 Shawwal attacks. Actually, if were going to start using the Islamic calendar for arbitrary dating of events, we should probably rename this to 1437 Ramadan attacks, anno hijra and all that. nableezy - 18:20, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Far from being based on single lines in news reports, the article is founded on analysis and in-depth reporting (i.e. - not only in breaking news reports) by security analysts and journalists who focus on militant Islamism and who (like the series of Wikipedia pages on jihadist attacks during Ramadan since the rise of the modern Islamist movement) trace not only the background, ideology and Islamist logic of using Ramadan as the occasion for both motivating lone wolves to commit violent attacks, but also specifically connect the attacks grouped on this page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:54, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article should have been tagged as a current event; Ramadan only just came to an end, after the deletion was proposed. There is considerable coverage that Ramadan was expressly targeted this year. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:36, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Textbook case of SYNTH, as others have carefully argued above. It is hardly better than an article called "Terrorist attacks that occurred on Tuesdays". Zerotalk 02:59, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read WP:SYNTH, which does not refer to ideas well-supported by analysts and major media. *Note that the several editors asserting SYNTH fail to engage the sourcing on the page, sourcing like this Time (magazine) retrospective look at Ramadan 2016, These 5 Facts Explain ISIS’s Ramadan of Terror [41].E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:51, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article discusses both lone wolf attacks reliably sourced as attacks inspired by Islamist ideas and propaganda, and attacks carried out by minions of militant Islamist organizations (ISIS, Hamas, Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen, etc.). It looks perfectly clear to me. And not different from the way Wikipedia handles violent militant movement from other eras (fin de siecle anarchists, the IRA, etc.).E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:42, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please quote what from the article connects a nightclub in Florida to an Israeli settlement in the West Bank to a bombing in Indonesia to whatever else you have cobbled together in your synthesized topic. Saying [i]t looks perfectly clear to me is a subtle admission that no such linkage occurs, and SYNTH is very much relevant here, despite your repeated insistence that it is not. nableezy - 00:45, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, What "looks perfectly clear to me" is the strong sourcing now in this article for the connection among these Ramadan attacks. Issues you may want to raise about what is in other WP articles are not relevant to the quesiton at issue here: the notability of this topic.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:22, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I dont believe I raised anything about any other WP article, thank you very much. I was commenting on your completely made up point about the Time piece supposedly making this article not SYNTH. It does not connect the topics you claim it does, and like so many of your comments here that was blatantly dishonest for you to claim that it does while attempting to dismiss a valid point. nableezy - 15:18, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Each of these attacks already has its own article, and all are listed in the List of non-state terrorist incidents and List of Islamist terrorist attacks. There's no need to duplicate material just to highlight those attacks committed during Ramadan, especially since they have little in common and the link of each attack to Ramadan is often controversial and disputed. From the oft-cited NYT article: "terrorism researchers caution that attacks happen year-round and that there is little systematic evidence that they become more common during Ramadan. And it is almost impossible to tell what role the month plays in the thinking of individual attackers. […] The recent spate of attacks could be less about Ramadan than about the Islamic State’s desire to project strength as it loses territory." Nykterinos (talk) 22:26, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is patently untrue that "Each of these attacks already has its own article," a statement that could not be made by anyone who has read the article. Or even skimmed it. This, along with the text and sourcing in the lede and "Background" sections makes me regard Nykterinos' opinion as mere IDONTLIKEIT..E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:52, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Do delete this article as it wrongfully displays Islam and is bad for Islam's image.
Islam is a protected religien. Delete now thank you alhamdulliah. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.247.77.176 (talk) 21:55, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have created pages on many topics on WP (over 200 in my ~2 years of editing). Of those article on attacks that I created, a handful have been deleted. The record is transparent, but do note that some articles marked as "deleted" by WP's automatic system in my "articles created" account were in fact merged or deleted by me before other editors ever saw them - meaning that I was live editing and decided that the sources did not, in fact, support an article.
  • I'm not talking only of the deleted attempts. By all means create an article every few days (simple mathematics), but it is noticeable that they are often rushed - suffice it for a newspaper to report an incident of this type and you gallop to create a page - phobically focused on Arabs and Islamic terrorism, with strings of synthesis. You get round the Notability by citing a dozen news outlets that all play variations on the primary Reuters-Associated Press reports.Nishidani (talk) 16:33, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This personal attack is not only highly inappropriate, it is flatly untrue. Early in my editing (after a rough start) I learned to be extremely careful to source articles I create to multiple, signed articles in mainstream media. If I can't find that sort of material, I do not write a current event article. I do not use multiple versions of wire service reports. Creating articles about major, breaking news events such as the Amman shooting attack, 2015 Abha mosque bombing, or the Chris Murphy gun control filibuster is not only perfectly legitimate, it is highly functional since when a story is in the news, multiple editors will see the article and improve it by revising, reviewing, sourceing and expanding. i.e.: this is a good way to build good articles. I also regularly create articles on other new stuff, including hot museum exhibitions Killer Heels; books that have not even been published yet (The Life You Want) and museums that have not yet opened Museum of the American Arts and Crafts Movement. Things do not have to be old to be notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:55, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Believe it or not, some of the articles E.M. has created are completely devoid of the Arab/Islamic terrorism angle. In one example, he created the Chris Murphy gun control filibuster, which I will admit was a pretty good move on his part. That has since evolved into a pretty integral article in the post-2016 Orlando nightclub shooting field. While I'd say he does have a particular focus on Islamic terrorism, I'd add it's not as strong as one might think. Parsley Man (talk) 18:06, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I know that- I watch the I/P area. If everyone followed his example, instead of trying to exercised restraint until the news cycle had established notability, you'd have 5 articles a week created there on what the Israeli army is doing every day and night.Nishidani (talk) 19:47, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That doesnt make attacks during Ramadan a topic of its own, and it certainly doesnt connect most of whats covered in the article. nableezy - 20:25, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Newspapers are not written by historians. There is a silly article cited in the lead about whether this is the bloodiest Ramadan in history.ISIS-Ramadan attacks can only be measured for 3 years. The Yom Kippur War known as the Ramadan War occasioned far greatest losses, as did the Iran-Iraq War in which neither Islamic side held fire over the ensuing 8 Ramadans. On a rough calculation in the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, as a ceasefire was ending, Egypt attacked in the south and Israel conducted a large-scale offensive on 3e fronts at the beginning of Ramadan in 1948. That's why one shouldn't use the pseudo-historical garbage of instant reporting to create encyclopedic articles.Nishidani (talk) 20:34, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Many of the reliable sources shown here show how this is a phenomenon that is discrete and not just WP:SYNTH. Given that many reliable sources have refered to it as a grouping and a thing in itself, having an article makes sense. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:49, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete instead as not only is there is a rather clear consensus for this, but I too am seeing questionability for a solidly convincing article at this time; there's information and sources but I'm currently still not sure if it's enough for its own article.
  • Delete per Nableezy. Original research and redundant to other articles. It is evident from above arguments that the article is WP:SYNTH. Luke J. talk 15:32, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.