Talk:Left-wing terrorism

Assassination of Charlie Kirk

Considering some WP:RS are reporting this a terrorism, should it be included in this list? PhilovGraves (talk) 14:02, 13 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

No. Ignoring for now the question as to whether Fox News is even suitable source for this (see WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS: "generally unreliable for the reporting of politics"), we clearly don't have adequate grounds (which would require multiple reliable sources) to label it either 'terrorism', or 'left wing'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:07, 13 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
I have to do note that the engravings on the casings and what we know about the <- person in custody -> [https://globalnews.ca/video/11417776/charlie-kirk-shooting-suspect-had-expressed-anger-over-his-beliefs/ described by his family may indicate such a possibility which does back up the Fox News section, maybe we should create a Rfc/Discussion on it PhilovGraves (talk) 14:24, 13 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
There are no circumstances where we are going to cherry-pick a few sources to draw our own conclusions on this, which is what you appear to be proposing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:26, 13 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
P.S. I have redacted a violation of WP:BLP policy (which applies to article talk pages, and everywhere else on Wikipedia) from your last post. Wikipedia operates on presumption of innocence principles, even if some media sources don't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:51, 13 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
ok thank you for that PhilovGraves (talk) 15:15, 13 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
There are also... alternate theories... circulating regarding the semiotics of the shell casing that would point away from the shooting being left-wing violence at all. And this is the thing: anyone trying to interpret internet memes on the shell casings of a shooter's gun is effectively reading tea leaves. We don't know the motive. We may not for a good long while. Until we do it is against policy for us to guess. Simonm223 (talk) 15:25, 13 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
We know it doesn't mention transsgender. It seem more likely this is a Groyper Doug Weller talk 16:06, 13 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
Given that we don't base articles on what 'seems more likely', how about we leave the speculation to those being paid to generate such waffle. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:52, 13 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, excuse the comment. What is a fact is that some reports claim he lives with someone transgender. Too many conflicting stories right now. Doug Weller talk 17:35, 13 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
And I don’t see sufficient sources to call this any kind of terrorism. Doug Weller talk 17:36, 13 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

Executive Order 9/23/25

Given current events, but esp US President Trump's newest executive order designating "antifa" a terrorist organization, I'm wondering if we w ant to include some editing protections on this article ahead of potential vandalism or editing wars? Domestic terrorism in the United States Psychopomplemousse (talk) 22:13, 23 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

Excessive reiteration of info

Are the two graphs & captions on the #United States (formally #Weather Underground) section really necessary when identical info is found on the Domestic terrorism in the United States page? If anything, it feels too much of a deviation from the subject matter and focuses too much into contemporary subjects. -- 00101984hjw (talk) 02:30, 9 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Move discussion of Right-wing terrorism to appropriate page

Some of the content in the United States section looks more appropriate on other pages. Elemental Gallium (talk) 16:10, 29 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Content Disclaimer

Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.

  1. The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
  2. There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
  3. It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
  4. Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
  5. Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.