Talk:2010 Austin suicide attack

Hunster , my edits RE: Facebook page, origin of "capitalist creed"

i just wanted to go into more depth on these two edits. i think we can come to some agreement on them, and i hope you can help me make them better inclusions.

i don't doubt that this is discussed at length at whatever page the policy that "blogs" are inadequate source material was settled upon, but the matter is complicated when a journalist at, for instance, newsweek practices his craft at a newsweek-sponsored blog. as "traditional" news sources become more digital, the line between a mere blogger's blog and a journalist's column becomes less distinct. paid journalists who's most trafficked product is their employer-hosted blog participate in the same space as do bloggers with day jobs. they link to, source claims to and comment on the contributions of self-supported bloggers. in this sense, we run the risk of letting the editor in chief of the atlantic monthly or newsweek dictate what wikipedia's standards for sources are.

having said that, the source for the claim that the "capitalist creed" was authored by henry farlie is problematic.

in the first order, it is inaccurate. the coupling of the communist creed contrasted against the parody of capitalist values as "to each according to his greed" can be traced back decades prior to farlie's use of it.

again, let me place here the link i used in the article: [link[1]]. (the same author posted the same at the much larger, more notable redstate [link[2]], perhaps that might solve our reliable source problem?)

now, here's what makes the newsweek blog which is the current source for the current inaccurate claim that henry farlie is the author of the "to each according to his greed line so problematic. in his newsweek blog, jeremy mcwhorter introduces the claim like this:

"Some of the bloggers seeking the line's origins have attributed it to the late British essayist Henry Fairlie."

though he never names or links "some bloggers" there is no doubt that he is referring to the post i sought to include in the article. that post mentions farlie in a list of complete library citations of uses of the phrase, of which farlie's is the most recent. the farlie reference was to the book the newsweek blogger himself wrote about farlie.

so, what i am doing by fixing that part of the article is going to the primary source of an inaccurate claim to correct it.

if, despite all of that, barrypolitic, either at his own blog or at redstate, fails to meet the criteria for a reliable source, then i think the only way to improve the article is to remove the entire claim about farlie's authorship.

the second matter is of the facebook page, and specifically the characterization of it as a "support group page". my choice of source for this edit is for the sole reason that, of all of the sources which have been cited as discussing it, the link i provided was the only one which included a screenshot of the actual page as it stood before it was taken down.

[link[3]]

obviously, i think the sources which have made it into the article are incorrect in their portrayal of the facebook page as a "support page". i believe that the screenshot better supports the claim that the page was intended as an impostor designed with particular political implications in mind. it doesn't seem fair to me that the politico's utilization of those intended implications be recorded as fact without an accompanying primary document to check it against.

again, this is a matter of including a primary source.

other sources cited reference facebook pages other than the one created by emily walters (some of which are mere blogs).

perhaps the screenshot can be taken into the local media gallery and floated to the right of that section or linked within some mention of emily walters as the page's author. from there there can be some dispute about whether speculation of her intentions is encyclopedic or not. i doubt it is, but for the same reason i doubt some of the other inclusions in this article i have no intention of adjusting are encyclopedic. 66.212.196.48 (talk) 08:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I also have a problem with Farlie as a source because:

1. Farlie does not mention the phrase "capitalist creed"
2. A 1974 source (Income Tax is Obsolete) does mention the phrase "capitalist creek" and with similar meaning and was likely read by Stack
3. The NZ Truth reference checks out! However, it apparently did not "catch on", it doesn't say "capitalist creed" and almost certainly wasn't read by Stack. It will likely become known as the original source however.
4. The Facebook page gives a small amount of insight into Stack's political leanings and nothing on the origin of this saying.
5. Don't get me wrong, I find this fascinating as well, but is it so important that we can't wait for a reliable source that's definitive?
6. Perhaps The Big Apple should go to RSN for review. - Stillwaterising (talk) 13:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

i think there probably isn't a precise origin of the phrase, as it is commonly used in many forms and almost as old as the communist creed itself. one often hears it abbreviated as a protest chant for "human need! not corporate greed!" and permutations can be found in common coinage all over the web. perhaps it would be just as good to say that it's as old as (the new zealand truth reference) and leave it at that. 66.212.196.48 (talk) 14:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

the newsweek reference seems to me link a biographer of an obscure figure trying to stretch the notability of his subject beyond actual proportions. 66.212.196.48 (talk) 17:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Did Marx ever refer to what he wrote as "the communist creed"? TerraFrost (talk) 20:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

he may or may not have. we're talking about factual claims about the authorship of "the capitalist creed". whether farlie included the specific words "capitalist" and "creed" in his use of the "to each according to their greed" trope is moot, since it's been established that he is not it's original author.

at this point, i'm going to go ahead with the compromise solution i mentioned above, which is to excise the claim altogether. 66.212.196.48 (talk) 23:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think any of the other sources really qualify as prior invocations of the same capitalist creed that Stack invoked. The 1974 source says "To each according to his needs, from each according to his ability to pay". To say that and "To each according to his greed, from each according to his gullibility" are the same thing is a fairly significant stretch. Ability to pay and gullibility are not synonymous and greed and needs are not synonymous. The capitalist creed Stack invoked is a lot more clever, imho, and a lot more critical of capitalism as a whole then the one written in 1974. I mean, Stack's quote extends beyond taxes to business as a whole. A company produces an advertisement and you, in your gullibility, fall for it and buy the product. And the company that produces the product greedily takes the money, without bothering to tell you the truth about the product - about how you don't really need that product and about how their prices are excessively marked up. It can even apply to phishing scams. The greedy engage in them and the gullible fall for them.

The 1974 quote isn't even close to being that generic. "To each according to his needs"? That implies that the needs of the needy are being satisfied. Stack's quote doesn't at all imply that. That you're gullible doesn't mean you're needy and that you're needy doesn't mean you're gullible. "From each according to his ability to pay"? Stack's quote implies that you're being stupid if you pay - the 1974 quote doesn't imply much of anything. Or maybe it's just taking for granted that people will pay, regardless of whether or not they're stupid for doing so. And regardless, the fact that the 1974 author called it the capitalist creed is totally irrelevant, as well, as it's clearly not the same capitalist creed Stack invoked.

Further, even the NZ Truth reference is a stretch. "To every man according to his greed"? Sure - that's a part of the capitalist creed Stack invoked but it's also missing half of Stack's quote.

Fact is, even going with what's posted at redstate.com, I still consider Farlie to be the original source. The other sources aren't even close, imho, and to attribute any of them would be inappropriate. The 1974 source would be inappropriate because that's not what Stack said and the NZ Truth would be inappropriate because that wasn't just what Stack said.

I will concede that the redstate.com link and the barrypopik.com link do provide a nice insight as to how the quote evolved over the years but the particular variation Stack quoted, even per those links, is due to Farlie. In fact, it's more attributable to Farlie than the communist creed is to Marx. As the article on the communist creed notes, Louis Blanc - not Karl Marx - was the person who first wrote down that combination of works. And that, in turn, was inspired by something Henri de Saint Simon penned which, in turn, may have been inspired by the New Testament. But, seriously, so long as you're going to attribute just one person, Farlie's who ought to be attributed, imho, just as Marx is the one who ought to be attributed for the communist creed since it's his name that appears in the first sentence of that article TerraFrost (talk) 07:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

at this point, i'm irresistibly compelled to ask, are you jeremy mccarter? i just find it vastly improbable that joseph stack ever read a figure as obscure as farlie, and the people who do find farlie notable are a vanishing few. a google search of "henry farlie" which excludes all permutations of joe stack's name and the name of his biographer, newsweek columnist and author of the erroneous farlie reference, jeremy mccarter, yields exactly one hit [link[4]]. and that's to his obituary from 1990, not to anything he wrote, much less the item in which he used the phrase we're discussing.

i agree that whether one instance or another used the specific words, "capitalist" and "creed" is meaningless. they are implied by the fact that they are a parody of the communist creed. also implied in any abbreviation of the parody to the second half about what is accorded "to each" is some form of the first half about what is accorded "from each".

this line of argument - that whichever of the available hits from a lexus or google search has the most exact words in common must be THE source - seems to be working to obscure the rational conclusion. that is that a parodic "capitalist creed" compliment to the original communist creed has been in common usage since as far back as the 20's.

i honestly don't understand why it's important to shoehorn an obscure magazine columnist in as a definitive source for something anyone familiar with leftwing cant has heard a million times from other sources. 66.212.196.48 (talk) 09:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not Jeremy McCarter. I've been a member of WikiProject Austin for over a year (see the wikiproject's history) and for some reason I don't think Jeremy McCarter is. Indeed, I'd be surprised if he even lived in Austin, let alone Texas. Besides, I wasn't the one who provided the link in the first place (as can be seen on this talk page).

Anyway, what does it matter if Joseph Stack read Farlie or not? Do you think he read Shakespeare? Do you think he had any idea that "pound of flesh" was from a Shakespeare play? Honestly, I didn't, until it was mentioned, here. Same thing for Marx. Do you think Stack read Marx? I'm, personally, familiar with him as is just about everyone, but to actually have read his work? Same thing for Rite Mae Brown - the 1983 author of the definition of insanity. That we're indirectly saying she originated the term in no way implies Stack even knew who she was. Certainly I didn't.

Maybe Stack heard the capitalist creed from a friend of his who, in turn, heard it from a friend of theirs. Should we then attribute Stack's friend? Or maybe we should attribute Marx? I mean, if it's not a big leap to go from the 1974 capitalist creed to the one Stack used then neither is it a leap to go from Marx to the capitalist creed as invoked by Stack.

In any event, although I don't think blogs (which even wikipedia considers RedState to be) ought to be discounted simply because they're blogs, I do think they ought to be avoided when better sources are available. And I would say that's what Newsweek is - a better source. A source that professors are less likely to be skeptical if cited in an essay or something. TerraFrost (talk) 15:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

ah, i see your point more clearly now. sorry for the snarkiness.

just for the hallibut, i'm ging to leave a bunch of links here showing how ubiquitous the line is.

commondreams newsletter: <a href="http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/07/24-0">bystander July 24th, 2009 12:55 pm</a>

san diego indymedia: <a href="http://sandiego.indymedia.org/es/blue/2003/05/5870.shtml">hoxha | 09.05.2003 01:00</a>

democrat underground: <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3928553#3932190">Lilith Velkor Thu Jun-23-05 07:23 PM</a> and <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4326545#4326660">boobooday Tue Oct-28-08 07:46 PM</a>

socialist philosopher, slovoj zizek: <a href="http://sebeneselassie.blogspot.com/2009/09/to-each-according-to-his-greed-slavoj.html">To each according to his greed</a>

jesus' general: <a href="http://patriotboy.blogspot.com/2008/10/socialism-for-mavericks-to-each.html">Socialism for Mavericks: To Each According to his Greed</a>

matthew yglesias: <a href="http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/07/the_takeover.php#comment-2470760">Not As Stupid As Will Allen | July 11, 2008 2:32 PM</a>

salon: <a href="http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/feature/2010/01/20/obam_s_first_year_kirn/index.html">walter kern, The year of inverted socialism</a> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.212.196.48 (talk) 22:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

No need to apologize for snarkiness - I actually kinda got a chuckle out of the fact that you thought I was Jeremy McCarter!

It would, incidentally, be interesting to ask some of the earlier posters where they heard it from. The RedState article links to usenet posts from as early as 1994. Assuming those posters could even be contacted it would be interesting to hear where they had heard that variation of the capitalist creed. Of course, whatever they say would likely not be cite-able per WP:OR, so, interesting as though it might be, I guess it wouldn't serve a lot of point, either. TerraFrost (talk) 22:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Any objections to my re-adding the attribution for the capitalist creed? Also, regarding the now deleted insanity definition attribution... see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#reliability of Psychology Today. TerraFrost (talk) 07:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I think between Popik and PT it's sourced well to Farley, however obscure that may be. If people don't like that answer they can read the sources and come to their own conclusion. - Stillwaterising (talk) 00:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

yep. i will be re-removing. the quote is not sourced well. it is an inaccurate source to an inaccurate claim, and it is not encyclopedic to just dump stuff in the article and let readers sort it out for themselves. 18:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.212.196.48 (talk)

Stack's page at BillyEli.com

In archive.org there's a page that seems to missing throughout the archive history called http://billyeli.com/joe.htm. The current page is interesting and I found a cached version from February 11, 2010 (before the incident) that is the same as the current version. I'm not sure if this is censorship or not because all of the band member bios are missing from the archive. There's also an interesting note in the recent newsletter cached here. - Stillwaterising (talk) 15:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

See also...

Why does this have as a "see also" a link to the sovereign citizen movement. No mention is made Stack having of a connection to such movements prior to the link, nor are sources cited attesting to such. The only correlation is that he was upset with the government, and sovereign citizen movement is also upset with the government. A: Mr Stack hates the IRS. B: the soverign citizen movement hates the IRS. Therefore Mr Stack is a affiliated with the sovereign citizen movement. Wrong. Correlation does not imply causation.

Therefore, unless referenced that Mr stack was, in fact, a member of the sovereign citizen movement, instead of simply pissed off at the IRS to the point of violence, a relationship cannot be attributed.68.59.177.3 (talk) 01:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe that the inclusion of other groups or incidents that are against the government would be allowed. While he didn't belong to a "group", he radicalized himself to the point where he could have easily been a recruit. --Hourick (talk) 16:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Hoekstra

FWIW (and throwing this out there), Pete Hoekstra made a comment referring to the attack as an act of domestic terrorism. Hoekstra's opinion is notable, not least because he's the ranking member on the House intelligence committee. Also, as a piece of veiled satire, he's one of the few conservatives to come out and actually admit that white people can commit acts of terrorism in a post-9/11 environment (especially when some of his colleagues in the House are condoning or not condemning post-PPACA events). Link: [5] Sceptre ^(talk) 21:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

NTSB report

The NTSB released a preliminary report today. A press release here. The article should be updated with the results. - Stillwaterising (talk) 22:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion

I'm not going to do this, just suggest it: I hate the way this article looks (visually) almost like a memorial to the murderer. I would rather see a section on the victim, Vernon Hunter, and if possible a photo of him at the top of the page. The murderer does not deserve to be remembered in any way, imo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Potosino (talk • contribs) 00:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

That's a wonderful sentiment - but this is an encyclopedia - which is a cold, unsentimental thing. The sad fact is that Vernon Hunter was an entirely passive victim. He did nothing special except be in the wrong place at the wrong time. We have nothing much to say about him. Stack on the other hand demands to have a lot written about him. We have to relate what happened and why - that's what our readers will come here to learn. But you shouldn't see it as a memorial. People are going to come here and read about Stack and say what an unfeeling bastard he was - or that he was a cold murderer. That's not the kind of memorial anyone would want for themselves. I think we have it about right. If there were a good, public domain photo of Vernon Hunter, I'd certainly be advocating the placement of it somewhere in the article - but not at the head. The picture of the crash site says more about this event than that - and that's why it stays at the top. SteveBaker (talk) 02:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Title Change

The title "2010 Austin plane crash" makes the event sound like an accident rather than the act of terror that it was. I suggest that we find a different title, preferably one with the word "attack" in it.MrMontag (talk) 15:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

If by "act of terror" you mean "terrorist attack", then the sources available do not support that. I'm not sure what to call it other than plane crash, it wasn't a bombing or shooting which are easily named as such. WikiuserNI (talk) 15:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The lede paragraph does call it the 2010 Austin suicide attack, which would suffice perhaps. WikiuserNI (talk) 16:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The article is certainly about more than just a plane crash - and my personal inclination is to change the title. This wasn't primarily a plane crash. So far (as far as I can tell) there have not been any other plane crashes in Austin in 2010 - but if there were - then we'd certainly have to change the title. I think the event is sufficiently in our past to give it a more appropriate title. "2010 IRS suicide attack" might be a better choice.

HOWEVER: Our guidelines for recognisability at WP:TITLE suggest that we should use the title most often used in the reliable sources - and especially those used to reference the article. A quick check of our references section reveals:

• 21 sources refer to this as a "Plane crash".
• 5 refer to it as "Suicide"
• 2 refer to it as an "Attack"
• Only 2 use "Terrorism" or "Terrorist" in the description of the event - although several ask the question "Was this terrorism?" or something similar.

So I think we have to call it a "Plane crash" - although, as I said, that wouldn't be my personal choice.

• 13 sources refer to this as an event related to "Austin".
• 7 sources refer to it more generally as a "Texas" event.
• 7 refer to it as an "IRS" event of some kind.
• 2 referred to it as happening to the "Echelon" building.

So, I guess we should stick with "Austin" because that's the place most often associated with the event.

• 10 sources mentioned "Joe Stack" or "Joseph Stack" in the title.
• Not one source used the year "2010" in the title - but then they were all published within a month or so of the event and it would be sufficiently fresh in people's memory not to have needed that.

Hence, I think we could argue that sticking with "Austin plane crash" is acceptable - with "2010" to distinguish it from other plane crashes in Austin...with the previso that we'll change that to "February 2010 Austin plane crash" - in the event that another notable plane crash should happen in the Austin area over the next few months.

I think there is a case for weaving the pilot's name into the title - it's used in a lot of sources - and it does serve to properly disambiguate this crash from all others - and it's very likely search term. That's kinda tricky to do though: "Joe Stack Plane Crash" leaves out "Austin" which is used more widely in titles of reputable sources. "Joe Stack Austin plane crash" is a bit awkward. Dunno.

The Naturalness, Precision and Conciseness guidelines don't seem to help much - but Consistency says: "titles which follow the same pattern as those of similar articles are often preferred.". So I guess we should look at other events where planes were used as a suicide weapon..."September 11th attacks" isn't much help because nobody remembers the date of the Joe Stack thing - the articles on the individual attacks are named after the flight numbers ("American Airlines Flight 11", "United Airlines Flight 175", etc) - so that's no help. We also have "Collapse of the World Trade Center" - which is also of little use. Other articles about other tax protesters reveals no similarly violent attacks on the IRS, and all of the articles are named simply after the individual protester. I suppose that would argue for changing this article to Joseph Stack - but the article isn't biographical - so that's not right.

The nearest article to ours is probably Oklahoma City bombing - which suggests that Austin plane attack would be more consistent - and would avoid putting "2010" into the title - which would be a good thing, IMHO.

It's tricky...I don't like what we've got - but I have to say that WP:TITLE suggests that we're not far wrong.

SteveBaker (talk) 01:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

accident

At the end of the article there is a link to aviation accidents. I doubt anyone would call this an accident.--scuro (talk) 11:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I reverted that change. The title of the category you deleted is "Aviation accidents and incidents...". This was not an accident - but it most certainly was an "aviation incident" - so this is the correct category. SteveBaker (talk) 03:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

From Websters

"occurring or likely to occur especially as a minor consequence or accompaniment <the confusion incident to moving day>"

The plane crashing into the building wasn't the consequence of bad weather or any other variable. It was deliberate and planned. SB, I respectfully disagree with your revert and assertions.--scuro (talk) 15:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

From Dictionary.com; "an individual occurrence or event". Which is why a related category of incidents and accidents in the US also includes the 9/11 attacks. The category should therefore stay. WikiuserNI (talk) 16:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not disputing your assertion that this was no accident. I agree, 100%, it was quite deliberate. What you seem to have failed to notice is that the wikipedia category that you removed (and which I restored) is called "Aviation accidents and incidents". Sure, this wasn't an accident - but it most certainly was an incident. Wiktionary defines the word "incident" as follows:

1. An event or occurrence.
2. A relatively minor event that is incidental to, or related to others.
3. An event that may cause or causes an interruption or a crisis.
4. In safety, an incident of workplace illness or injury

Clearly, the Joe Stack suicide plane crash was "An event or occurrence" and "An event that may cause or causes an interruption or a crisis" - so under definitions (1) and (3) that makes this an "incident" - which means that this article is (in part) about an aviation incident - which makes it a part of the "Aviation accidents and incidents" category.

I don't know how much simpler I can make this.

SteveBaker (talk) 19:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The error of understanding is yours. Take a closer look at who removed the text. I've made my point which I believe is valid but I can see that wikipedia has made this a category which includes planes from 9/11. Sloppy, but if your happy with that I can live with it.--scuro (talk) 03:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh - I'm sorry! By your vigorous defense of a seemingly simple error of understanding, I somehow got the impression that you were the instigator. SteveBaker (talk) 23:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Scuro, it doesn't matter who removed the category, you're still wrong about how appropriate it is. A category has been created that includes both airplane accidents and incidents that invoice airplanes.

Whether or not this sort of blanket coverage is appropriate is another discussion, but the simple fact is that the category does quite adequately suit this article subject. WikiuserNI (talk) 09:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

WU, I have no disagreement that there is such a category and I pointed that out already in my last post. Flight 93 (9/11) is listed in the wider category of "Accidents and incidents on commercial airliners in the United States". So yeah I don't think the category is apt but said, "I could live with it". We can talk about potential improvements or we can just let things be...no skin off of my back either way. If you want to talk about anything else I'd rather be talking about fall trout. Spoons have been working for me. Do you fish? :) --scuro (talk) 00:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Nope, I don't fish. But seriously - if you think the category should be split up into (let's say) Category:Aircraft accidents and Category:Aircraft incidents-that-are-not-accidental (or whatever) - then by all means head over to the talk page of the existing category and argue your case for splitting in two. If you get it changed, I'd be more than happy to agree to make this article be in the latter. However, this talk page is most certainly not the place to discuss that. Hence, so long as the category remains as it currently is, this article clearly belongs within it. SteveBaker (talk) 23:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Use of category "terrorist".

If the "Reaction" section opens with, "The United States Department of Homeland Security issued a statement saying that the incident did not appear to be linked to organized international terrorist groups," then why has someone pasted the word "terrorist" all over this entry? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.242.93 (talk) 16:42, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

The Wiktionary definition of the word "terrorist" is:

terrorist: A person, group, or organization that uses violent action, or the threat of violent action, to further political goals; frequently in an attempt to coerce either a more powerful opponent, (such as a citizen or group targeting a government), or conversely, a weaker opponent, (such as a government, or even an internal citizen or group, being targeted by a larger government).

Stack used violent action with the following statement:

"I can only hope that...the American zombies wake up and revolt; it will take nothing less. I would only hope that by striking a nerve that stimulates the inevitable double standard, knee-jerk government reaction that results in more stupid draconian restrictions people wake up and begin to see the pompous political thugs and their mindless minions for what they are."

...that is furthering political goals - an attempt to coerce a group of citizens to target a government. So by that definition, Stack was a self-admitted terrorist.

I don't think we need to state that in the article - we can state the facts and let our readers decide what it means. However, categorization of the article is a more black-and-white matter. Technically, Stack was a terrorist, he said as much, he acted as such. Hence this article belongs in that category. Even if it were somewhat debatable whether he was a terrorist - this article belongs in that category because people looking for articles about terrorists should certainly be able to find this one in that category.

Also, consider other articles in that category - another is John Patrick Bedell's 2010 Pentagon shooting incident - which bears a lot in common with Stack's actions. If that belongs in the category - then certainly this does.

User:WikiuserNI removed that categorization with the edit summary: "Lone attack, not yet categorised as terrorist". There is nothing in the definition of "terrorist" that says it must be a group thing. ("terrorist: A person, group or organization"...a lone person can be a terrorist). As for "not yet categorised as terrorist" - I don't know who we're waiting for. The dictionary definition of the word is perfectly clear - and it certainly applies here.

Hence I'm reverting the removal of that categorization.

SteveBaker (talk) 03:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I've also reverted your addition of the category. A lone person taking out a grievance by crashing a light aircraft into a building and killing himself in the process is not a terrorist attack. If other articles are incorrectly categorised, they should also be de-categorised. Mjroots2 (talk) 06:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

We cannot categorise this article on the basis of our own opinions. There is a lot of information in the article itself on whether or not the attack constituted a terrorist. At the moment, it is not being treated as such by the authorities, despite some dissenting opinions. WikiuserNI (talk) 09:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

@Mjroots2: Why is a lone person doing all of these things not considered a terrorist? The dictionary definition of the word is quite clear - in none of the three paper dictionaries and four online dictionaries that I've just looked at is there any kind of a distinction made. So the English word "terrorist" may perfectly well be applied here. Moreover, there is at least one other entry in the Cat that is a lone person.

@WikiuserNI: What the "authorities" do or do not decide also has no impact whatever on the meaning of a word. Governments use particular language for political ends all the time - and it doesn't change the meaning of the word. In this case, calling Stack a "terrorist" in formal government language would trigger a shift in responsibilities for the investigation or something else that they wish to avoid happening. However, this has nothing to do with personal opinion. Please read my post above and understand that the meaning of this word is quite clear and Stack fulfills every aspect of it.

So - I'm putting back the category because it clearly applies here. If you wish to debate the use of the word - please confine yourself to the actual meaning of the word - because that is what matters when it comes to application of categories. Perhaps you can find an authoritative dictionary that has a definition of the word that says that a single individual act is not terrorism. However, since Wiktionary, Websters and the OED agree - it's going to be hard to find a more definitive definition. SteveBaker (talk) 20:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Steve, maybe WP:3O or WP:RFC might be a better way of sorting this dispute. What do you think? Mjroots (talk) 21:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

It's a little early for such drastic action! You have yet to explain why you disbelieve what the dictionaries say - or perhaps to explain how I may have misinterpreted them? You must have a reason surely? SteveBaker (talk) 00:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

This appears to be a very obvious violation of WP:NOR. If you are taking a dictionary definition, comparing it yourself to a given set of events, deciding whether or not those criteria are satisfied, and then making changes to the article based on that, it is original research. It is not a question of different interpretations or disbelieving what a dictionary criteria says, you should not be making any interpretations at all. We are not here to debate the meaning of the word in relation to an incident. If the reliable sources used are making a point not to consider this as a terrorist action, it is for no wikipedia editor to override them, and come to their own interpretation. Continued reversion of this nature to restore the category will soon be verging on an edit war. If this behaviour continues Mjroots is quite right to say such action is going to be required. Benea (talk) 15:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

To which I will add that per WP:BRD, we are firmly in the D territory now. Further additions of the category against consensus will result in action being taken per WP:EW / WP:3RR. Mjroots (talk) 15:43, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree - we need to discuss. Using the right word is not "research" - we don't need a reference to say that he crashed into a "building" and not a "barn" - the definitions of words at least is something we have to be able to rely upon. IMHO, if there is OR here it lies in assuming that we should ignore the usual meaning of a common English word and make up our own meaning instead. If we have a reference that says "Stack cannot be considered a terrorist because of X, Y and Z" - then there is a case for excluding him from this category. But in the absence of that, deliberately excluding him from a category to which the English language says he belongs - is wrong. Once you take matters into your own hands and start making up your own definitions, you stray into the territory where you ARE doing OR by deliberately using words in a way that manipulates the article...and that's wrong. I'm the one who wants to use this word in the normal dictionary manner - you are the one who wants to pick some strange and unusual meaning and apply that to exclude him from this category: "A lone person taking out a grievance by crashing a light aircraft into a building and killing himself in the process is not a terrorist attack." - well, I'm sorry, but that is indeed a terrorist act - according to the normal definition of the word. You seem to be giving the word some connotation that someone is only a terrorist if they belong to some larger organization - and that's simply not what the word means. It is you who are doing the "OR" by inventing new and novel meanings for common words. SteveBaker (talk) 19:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Steve, it's pretty simple, on the talk page and the article page itself, there is plenty of discussion as to whether or not this is a terrorist attack or not. A suicide murder may be an atrocity in many eyes, but it doesn't automatically make it a terrorist attack, as per the sources used in the article. WikiuserNI (talk) 20:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

This link might help clarify things. http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/02/19/terrorism --scuro (talk) 23:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

A touch US-centric that article. We are writing this article for a worldwide readership after all. WikiuserNI (talk) 10:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I love it when articles about an event in Texas get called out for being too "US-centric" Shii (tock) 13:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Reading the dictionary, I can't see how this is not terrorism. Is the consensus that it's not? If so, why? (The fact that it was done by an individual is irrelevant, as long as no definitions use this as an inclusive or exclusive criterion.) Redefining words for political ends is much like Newspeak, and writing WP articles in Newspeak would surely be OR? - Soulkeeper (talk) 10:28, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

suicide note -- more permanent location

Since the EmbeddedArt website is now defunct, I think it would be helpful to the article to have a link to a more "permanent" location -- Cryptome.org sometimes acts like an anti-memoryhole, such as in this case: http://cryptome.org/0001/joe-stack.htm 142.229.108.37 (talk) 21:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The note is referred to webcitation.org in the External Links, which captured a cached image of the page (including the html headers that show the number of of MS Word revisions), requested by a wikipedian mere hours after the incident. This the most reliable, reliable, and verifiable image of the suicide note while it was still available on his website. - Stillwaterising (talk) 06:15, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposed merger

I propose that User:Stillwaterising/Joseph Stack be merged into this article. There are a few reliably sourced details in my user page that can be worked into this article. Off wiki, there are several places that link to my user page. Propose that information be merged, and page redirected. Stillwaterising (talk) 05:32, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on 2010 Austin suicide attack. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100223054613/http://www.latimes.com:80/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sns-ap-us-plane-crash-pilot,0,5307694.story to http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sns-ap-us-plane-crash-pilot,0,5307694.story
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100226191529/http://www.latimes.com:80/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sns-ap-us-plane-crash-stacks-journey,0,7094353.story?page=1 to http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sns-ap-us-plane-crash-stacks-journey,0,7094353.story?page=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:05, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Title

Why is this called a 'suicide' attack when it fits the very definition of terrorism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.200.127.217 (talk) 07:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Something can be both a "suicide" and a "terrorist attack." Framing it as either/or is not helpful; furthermore it's not wikipedia's job to speculate on the motives or motivations of this incident. What even is the definition of "terrorism?" I guess that depends on what side of the aisle you're on.. to some it's simply mentioning a contrary position or opinion. Simple test: was this reported in the news as a terrorist attack? No? Then quit trying to revise history to suit your losing (politically motivated) narrative. 174.207.3.52 (talk) 02:08, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Wife or ex-wife?

The main biography section says that he divorced his 2nd wife Sheryl in 1998. In the Reactions section, it describes her as his "wife" and "widow" and describes him as her "late husband." Can anyone clarify the status of the marriage at the time of his death? Were they married? Had they divorced? Got back together? This data needs to be corrected. These kinds of obvious errors are detrimental to Wikipedia. 174.207.3.52 (talk) 02:01, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Racial component

There's nothing on the article about how Stack was white while his murder victim was black. See here for example... AnonMoos (talk) 17:12, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Who cares? He couldn't possibly have known that or targeted him for that reason. -- 08:07, 11 October 2022 74.215.149.101

The terrorist obviously did not individually target the person who was killed, but various people have found significance in the fact that the violent government hater was White, while many of the employees who worked for the government agency at the targeted location were Black... AnonMoos (talk) 04:44, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Reevaluation needed

At the time, attacks like these were downplayed as acts of political violence, and any attempt to label them as right wing extremist attacks were opposed, particularly by the CSM, who made a point of calling these kinds of attacks non-partisan. With the benefit of hindsight, I think it makes sense to reevaluate these sources and to update the info as necessary. Viriditas (talk) 18:43, 29 May 2023 (UTC)