Wikipedia Deletes Article on Minnesota Jihad Arsonist, Claims “No source indicating that Hassan is a Muslim”


Wikipedia has some limited value if you want to get some facts about Tiberius Caesar or Henry Agard Wallace or Leon Spinks, but on contemporary issues it has — like virtually everything else — a pronounced hard-Left, pro-jihad bias. The biographies of Islamic apologists (John Esposito, Karen Armstrong, Reza Aslan, etc.) are fawning press releases, while those of foes of jihad terror such as Pamela Geller have lengthy “Criticism” sections that are filled with every negative statement about them and their work that can be found. And so it comes as no surprise that Wikipedia’s editors would deep-six an article about Tnuza Jamal Hassan, who recently set a series of fires on the campus of St. Catherine University in Minnesota, saying she wanted to “hurt people,” after exhorting Muslim students to join jihad terror groups such as al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or al-Shabaab. Hassan said she set the fires in revenge for supposed American atrocities on “Muslim land.” She wrote a letter to her roommates that police said contained “radical ideas about supporting Muslims and bringing back the caliphate.”

Nothing could be clearer from all this than the fact that Tnuza Jamal Hassan is a jihad terrorist, but Wikipedia’s hard-Left, agenda-driven editors were unconvinced — or more likely, determined to conceal this information from the public. And so they ignored this mountain of evidence. One Wikipedia editor claimed that Hassan “has not been charged with terrorism.” In reality, she faces a terror charge. And “Ms Hassan may or may not be having a mental health incident.” Of course! More of the global outbreak of mental illness. Wikipedia says “There is no source indicating that Hassan is a Muslim,” when there is an abundance of sources indicating that she is a Muslim.

Note also the Wikipedia editor saying “I removed the categories ‘Muslim terrorists’ (which is does [sic] not exist).” 30,000 jihad attacks worldwide since 9/11, and Wikipedia doesn’t even have a category for “Muslim terrorists.” This is the most vivid indication of all that when it comes to facts about the world today, Wikipedia is Leftist, agenda-driven, and worthless.

Of course, Wikipedia is not alone. The denial is near-universal, outside of the Geller Report, Jihad Watch, and a few other places. At St. Catherine University itself, students have not learned any lesson in the nature and magnitude of jihad terrorism from Tnuza Jamal Hassan. Instead, they are scratching their heads and wondering how poor Tnuza could have been driven to this on such a wonderful campus as theirs. In the wake of an attempted jihad arson that could have killed hundreds of people, students at St. Catherine University are saying: “St. Kate’s is one of the most inclusive, diverse welcoming schools you can think of.” And: “This was very surprising and we have a very diverse school that welcomes everyone.”

These students seem to assume that jihad terror attacks happen because Muslims find themselves in environments that are not “welcoming” and “diverse.” Thus the onus is all on the Infidels, and it is their responsibility to stop jihad terror attacks from occurring. If they happen anyway, it is because they were not “welcoming” and “diverse” enough. The idea that Muslims might stage jihad massacres for reasons of their own, stemming from Islamic texts and teachings — why, even to entertain that as a possibility would be “Islamophobic.” On campuses today, everything is the fault of the West. Those who think otherwise are racist, bigoted “Islamophobes.”

Meanwhile, the most important questions remain not only unanswered, but unasked. These include: Where did Tnuza Hassan learn Islam? Where does she attend mosque? What does that mosque teach about violence against unbelievers? Is that mosque being investigated? Why not? Is it being assumed that Tnuza J. Hassan was “radicalized on the Internet”? If so, why was the supposedly twisted, hijacked, violent version of Islam she supposedly learned on the Internet so easily able to overcome the supposedly peaceful, benign, tolerant version that everyone assumes that she learned at home and at her local mosque?

In light of the prevailing denial and willful ignorance regarding the nature and magnitude of the jihad threat, Wikipedia’s behavior is just par for the course. It would have been more surprising if it had been honest about what happened at St. Catherine University.

Here is Wikipedia’s editorial discussion on Tnuza Jamal Hassan’s jihad arson attack:

Article on previously non-notable person who at this point is accused but not convicted of a crime. Per WP:BLPCRIME, this sort of material should generally not go into BLPs, and under WP:BLP1E, its not certain she would get an article even if convicted. Nat Gertler (talk) 23:52, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussionsBabymissfortune 00:41, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussionsBabymissfortune 00:42, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussionsBabymissfortune 00:42, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussionsBabymissfortune 00:42, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussionsBabymissfortune 00:42, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussionsIcewhiz (talk) 07:20, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  1. The name of the university doesn’t actually have the apostrophe-s in it.
  2. “Arson Attack” is descriptive, not part of a proper name, and should thus not be capitalized
  3. “Arson Attack” seems redundant. We wouldn’t say “murder attack” or “robbery attack”. —Nat Gertler (talk) 20:25, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep — disclaimer, I started this article. Nominator NatGertler initially placed a {{prod}} on the article. When I left some questions, on their talk page, about their policy interpretations, they called my questions “badgering”. I can’t help noticing that this nomination is essentially the same as that used in the prod, even though I thought I had raised good questions over their interpretations of BLP1E and BLPCRIME. I find that disappointing. Geo Swan (talk) 14:37, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Would you care to restate your !vote rationale in terms of policy, rather than in terms of attacking me? —Nat Gertler (talk) 15:35, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
      • Some people conflate civil and collegial substantive discussion over issues with personal attacks. I encourage you to make sure you don’t make this conflation. It is not good for the project.
      • On your talk page I responded to the BLP1E claim you placed in your prod, yesterday. I reminded you that ALL three of the numbered subsections of BLP1E are supposed to be satisfied, before an individual is considered an instance of BLP1E. I drew your attention to the phrase “…is likely to remain, a low-profile individual.”I explained that domestic terrorists, in the USA, are very rare. I compared US domestic terrorist to plain ordinary garden variety murderers. We never cover plain ordinary murderers. We cover a small number of murderers who are in some way exceptional. Ordinary murdeers are adequately covererd in our articles on murder, domestic violence, firearms, etc., because they are so similar.Domestic US terrorists are so rare that claim removed for BLP reasons Geo Swan (talk) 22:27, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
        • Domestic US terrorists are not all that rare, alas. The list you will find at Terrorism in the United States will show you many such incidents, and that is certainly not all of them. I have edited out your claims here about the subject of this article, who has not been convicted of anything and discussion about her is limited by WP:BLP guidelines. —Nat Gertler (talk) 22:46, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete or Rename The event is potentially notable not the person. TheGreatWikiGeorge (talk) 16:42, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete This is an article about a 19 year-old woman who appears to me to be having some form of breakdown. The incident has had no lasting impact on either the building or the institution. In the very unlikely event that this becomes something more than an unfortunate episode in a young woman’s life, we can always recreate the article. World’s Lamest Critic (talk) 00:30, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Ms Hassan may or may not be having a mental health incident.Yes, the incident caused no actual casualties, and caused little physical damage. But, she appears to have waived her right to protect herself from self-incrimination, and willing made some damaging confessions. Anyone who actually read the article, or did their own google search and took even a minute looking at the articles covering her, will have seen she told investigators that she had hoped to burn the University to the ground, and cause extensive casualties.I suggest it is not her actual result that matters, but rather her intent. Many mass killers could also be described as young people who appeared to be having some kind of breakdown. Their youth or possible mental health issues do not keep them from being notable.You suggest this will likely be nothing “more than an unfortunate episode in a young woman’s life”Geo Swan (talk) 02:45, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
      • I have read both our article and the sources used for it. I am aware of what she is alleged to have told investigators. She set eight small fires. “All but one of the fires were in trash cans,” according to this report. Her actions and words do not align. At this point it is not known where Hassan was born or if she is a US citizen, yet she is being described here as “a domestic terrorist”. This is irresponsible at best. World’s Lamest Critic (talk) 03:57, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
        • There has been a bunch of problematic content involved. I just had to go strip out article claims that there was a list of charges of which arson was the worst (source only said one charge of arson); that she was still in custody (source, a Monday article, only said that she was in custody on Friday night); and that she would have her next hearing next year (reality: next month.) The net effect of demonizing her with false information is of real concern. That the same editor asserted today the suspect’s guilt on another Wikipedia page keeps this a matter of severe BLP concern. —Nat Gertler (talk) 16:18, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS / WP:TOOSOON / WP:BLP. The subject has not yet been convicted, and the article reads like a news story. No apparent lasting significance just yet. If the incident is still remembered in six months, then sure, an article would be appropriate. But Wikipedia is not a newspaper. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:28, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete Seems like routine news-of-the-day, a minor campus crime incident. Nothing particularly notable about arson, no significant impact beyond the local region. ValarianB(talk) 16:24, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
  • DeleteWP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E are relevant here. Lankiveil (speak to me) 23:46, 24 January 2018 (UTC).
  • Delete. Fails WP:BLPCRIMEWP:BLP1E. We are not a police blotter for the reporting of minor crimes. Calling this an “arson attack” like it’s some kind of coordinated terrorist plot is a hell of a stretch. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:42, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. Local, minor-crime story that wouldn’t even rate a mention in a Minnesotapedia, if one existed. Whoever wrote this inflated nonsense should know better. —Calton | Talk 05:35, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete Local 1E crime. EEng 07:53, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep – and rename. This passes WP:RAPID and WP:NCRIME. LASTING can not be evaluated at this time.–BabbaQ (talk) 15:14, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Note – I was recently criticized by the article creator for having edited the article while it was under AFD. As this is a BLP of a subject who is likely receiving more attention (and thus having this page referenced) than they ever have or will again, I thought it best to remove or correct statements that did not match sources, particularly those that painted her in a negative light. This included falsehoods and unsourced damaging claims that were added by the complaining poster after the start of the AFD (such as the claim that her next court date was more than a year away, that she had “charges” of which one was the “most serious” when the source listed just a single charge, and that she was “currently” being held in custody.) If anyone wishes to see the article’s state before the AFD, it’s here. —Nat Gertler (talk) 17:21, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
    • I also edited the article after it was nominated for deletion. I removed the categories “Muslim terrorists” (which is does not exist) and “arsonists”. There is no source indicating that Hassan is a Muslim. She has not been charged with terrorism. She has not been convicted of arson. Geo Swan should probably be banned from BLPs. World’s Lamest Critic (talk) 03:21, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
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.

Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch and author of the New York Times bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad. His new book is Confessions of an Islamophobe. Follow him on Twitter here. Like him on Facebook here.

Have a tip we should know? Your anonymity is NEVER compromised. Email tips@thegellerreport.com

The Truth Must be Told

Your contribution supports independent journalism

Please take a moment to consider this. Now, more than ever, people are reading Geller Report for news they won't get anywhere else. But advertising revenues have all but disappeared. Google Adsense is the online advertising monopoly and they have banned us. Social media giants like Facebook and Twitter have blocked and shadow-banned our accounts. But we won't put up a paywall. Because never has the free world needed independent journalism more.

Everyone who reads our reporting knows the Geller Report covers the news the media won't. We cannot do our ground-breaking report without your support. We must continue to report on the global jihad and the left's war on freedom. Our readers’ contributions make that possible.

Geller Report's independent, investigative journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce. But we do it because we believe our work is critical in the fight for freedom and because it is your fight, too.

Please contribute here.


Make a monthly commitment to support The Geller Report – choose the option that suits you best.

Pin It on Pinterest