Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

stop edit war and focus on criteria

The edit warring must stop. If needed I will request full protection. Please both of you cut it out. Focus on a discussion here about the inclusion criteria - for now I see two versions being promoted 1) acts perpetrated by groups that are called Islamists in Rs, regardless of the particulars of the motivation for a given attack 2) acts carried out by any group, whether called Islamist or not - where the stated motivation was an Islamist political or religious goal. I'm sure there are other inclusion criteria but those are the rough boundaries I'd say. So please, make a case here. - what are inclusion criteria?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:24, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Don't accuse me of edit-warring, oh Jedi. There's nothing for me to cut out. The stated inclusion criteria are: "Islamic terrorism consists of terror attacks by Islamic fundamentalists to further a perceived Islamic religious or political cause." This is a stupid article to have, but if we're going to have it, at least that criterion is objective and can be used to objectively retain or remove material. Your first proposed criterion is not tenable because even Islamists do things for various reasons other than Islamic religious or political causes, e.g. if their country is occupied and they're engaged in a military action against the occupying forces. Your second is pretty much fine. The acts must be terrorist as well, so e.g. attacks on military targets by military groups don't count even if done by Islamists and even if called terrorism by the targets, e.g. the Syrian or Chinese governments.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:53, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

those criteria are too vague. As you can see from the edit warring others disagree. I haven't yet formed an opinion but would appreciate your more clear statement of criteria and linkage of same to RS that build similar lists. So plz bring evidence... Thanks --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:17, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

No, "others" don't disagree. One single editor, blocked mere hours after his previous block for violating a topic ban on India and Pakistan (and well on his way to AE regarding ARBPIA and the inevitable permaban), disagrees. Furthermore this editor not only refuses to engage on talk page, he thinks it's OK to delete sections from talk page and accuse other editors of being apologists and vandals. If you think the criteria are too vague propose some better ones, but really, I think you're making too much out of one disruptive editor's opinions here. Also, it's my opinion that it's impossible to define criteria, which is why the list obviously should be deleted. Since it's not likely to be, at least we should have criteria we can check against sources, which we kind of do.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:22, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

You might note that I've been removing items from this list for over a week and no one has contested a single one of my removals except for that one editor, who took less than four hours to get himself reblocked for another week. There are obviously a lot of people watching my edits and not complaining, since they chime in here and there. You're choosing the wrong place to play the voice of sanity and balance.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:37, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Chechen separatism

This item was recently added:

*{{flagicon|Russia}} September 1, 2004 – [[Beslan school hostage crisis]] <ref>{{cite news|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/world/04/russian_s/html/1.stm |title=Bbc News |publisher=BBC News |date=September 3, 2004 |accessdate=April 25, 2010}}</ref>

I don't believe it belongs on this list. This was an action by nationalist guerillas who happen to be Muslim. Their goal was to establish the independence of Chechnya. How is that an Islamic goal? The source given calls the terrorists "Chechen separatists," so certainly doesn't support the inclusion here. Thoughts?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:22, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I have now reverted this edit. But I think this qualifies as islamic terrorism. These "Chechen separatists," want to be indepentend because Russia is Christian and they are Muslims!--79.192.63.219 (talk) 18:36, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Really? Is that a universally accepted opinion or just yours? Why doesn't the wikipedia article about it say more on the issue? Or do you have other sources? The one you used totally fails WP:V.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:54, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Russia is Christian? That's new. Are you saying that because an estimated 44% is Christian? The only law I'm familiar with is the 1997 law that stated that Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and Judaism are important in Russian history. Should we impart your bias and ignore the struggle for independence that dates to the break up of the Soviet Union, IP?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 11:45, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Russia has traditionally been Christian, and Christianity (specifically, Eastern Orthodox Christianity) is still the biggest religion there -- so yeah, Russia IS still Christian in the same way that the USA is! 24.5.122.13 (talk) 05:31, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

The BBC pages do not call this an islamic or islamist attack.--TheJegos (talk) 16:29, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Archived discussions?

It appears that this article and is talk page have been under attack by Mohammedans. Archiving talk pages in the middle of discussions, rampant deletions. This article needs to be watched closer. (talk) 11 June 2014 (UTC)

the archiving was automatic. I switched it to archive after 1 year.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:33, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Can we discuss inclusion criteria?

It occurred to me that we may want to limit inclusion on this list not only by requiring that an attack be (a) terrorist and (b) motivated by either perceived Islamic or political goals, but also by requiring that there be an existing Wikipedia article on the attack. This is a widely used criterion for inclusion on lists and I think it would be useful here. Many of the items on the list even now suffer from an extreme lack of sourcing. For instance, most of the recent Syrian ones are so routine that there's no continuing coverage of them and no investigation. Each of the 3-6 sides in the Syrian conflict may have an opinion on who did it and why, but no one really knows, and then the day after they drop it because there was another one. If we require the entries on this list to be independently notable to the point where they can support their own Wikipedia articles we will avoid a lot of discussion about incidents which lack sufficient sourcing to understand what happened. Thus I'm soliciting everyone's thoughts: Require entries to have a stand-alone article? No? Something else?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:57, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I think you are right that we should only include terrorist attacks, which have an article. But I think you should not delete terrorist attacks against Israel, because the terrorist groups Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad Movement in Palestine are islamic terrorists. Also I think you should look at Category:WikiProject Terrorism articles and realise that there are many articles about islamic terrorist attacks!--79.192.53.172 (talk) 12:18, 21 April 2014 (UTC) i think that any event were someone had been killed in regards by another country is terrorism so in any case i believe we should include all articles about these attacks

So you disagree with criterion (b) above that the attack should be motivated by perceived Islamic religious or political goals? Or do you think all terrorist attacks against Israel by Islamists are motivated by Islamic religious or political goals even when roughly equivalent acts by, e.g. the PLO or Abu Nidal are not? What criterion would you use to decide which attacks on Israel by Palestinian groups are appropriate, and what effect would that have on the general inclusion criteria?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 12:24, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I think that we have to include all attacks by this three groups because they cite islamic reasons for their attacks and the PLO does not! But I think the PLO should still have also a extra List with their attacks against Isreal on their article page.--79.192.53.172 (talk) 12:31, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Can you give an example of such an attack against Israel where Islamic motives are cited? I'll leave you to work out your PLO list on your own if you don't mind.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 12:51, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas#Hamas_Charter_.281988.29 Hamas says it is antisemitic because of this statement of Muhammad. Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_antisemitism#Hadith --79.192.53.172 (talk) 13:01, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Also you can still help me with the PLO List! I am only an IP.--79.192.53.172 (talk) 13:05, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

@alf laylah wa laylah: What you should do to improve this mess!

1. Include all islamic terrorist attacks in the List which have an article. Look at Category:WikiProject Terrorism articles, there are many articles still not in the List.

2. Include all attacks against Isreal by the 3 groups, which I mentioned

3. Create a List called PLO attacks against Israel --79.192.53.172 ([[User ::::::::talk:79.192.53.172|talk]]) 13:38, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

--79.192.53.172 (talk) 13:44, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I understand that Hamas is an Islamist group, but that doesn't mean that every action they do is based on perceived Islamic religious or political goals. Since they participate in the governance of Gaza, a lot of what they do is more like state action for state purposes. Furthermore, many of their actions have been military in character rather than terrorist, so that it doesn't actually matter what their motives are for purposes of this list. That's why it's necessary to give specific examples rather than trying to argue by theory. It's not plausible that every action an Islamic group takes is for Islamic reasons. It's doubly not plausible that every attack against Israel by an Islamist group belongs on this list. Each must be considered on an individual basis. If you give one example, I'll show you what I mean. Also I don't want to work on a PLO list. This one is enough work already. You'll be able to figure it out eventually, I'm sure.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:54, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I am shocked. You claim that this group has to give an islamic explanation for every terror attack they commit. Then Al-Qaeda, also is no islamist organisation. They also do not explain every terror attack islamically. Then this whole List should be deleted. According to you there exists no islamic terrorism?--79.192.53.172 (talk) 14:12, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

No, don't put words in my mouth. There is Islamic terrorism, but also read WP:V. We need to have sources saying that attacks are motivated by Islamic religious or political reasons in order to be able to include them on this list. Terrorist groups aren't usually shy about sharing their reasons. We can't just assume that everything they do is motivated by Islamic goals.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:18, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. If groups like Al-Qaeda or Hamas commit terrorist attacks, which have their own article. This is enough to include them! This groups do not need an islamic statement for every terrorist attack.--79.192.53.172 (talk) 14:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think we need a statement from the group claiming Islamic motives, but I do think we need a statement from some reliable source attributing Islamic motives. One way to get this is by the group's making a statement. Another way is for historians or even journalists making declarative statements that the action had Islamist motives. This is really just basic WP:V. Not everything Islamists do has Islamic motives, so we need sources to tell us what their motives were in each case.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:34, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

What you do is empowerment of islamic terrorism by denying the islamic connection! No attack is for you islamically enough!--79.192.53.172 (talk) 14:44, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, if you're uninterested in following the basic principles of Wikipedia, perhaps you should start your own website and then you can make lists of whatever you want. Everything here has to be verifiable by citations to reliable sources.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:48, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I added the Beslan school hostage crisis to remind you that you still have to include many articles which fit every critera to be included. Or will you ever add a terrorist attack in this List?--79.192.63.219 (talk) 18:22, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

P.S. You also forgot the Westgate shopping mall attack!--79.192.63.219 (talk) 18:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, you violated the WP:1RR when you put it back in, so you ought to revert yourself and discuss it below.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Just because it involves Hamas doesn't mean it's an act of Islamic terrorism. WP:LABEL does apply. I don't see an article written up about incidences of American Terroist events listing the Boston Tea Party. As the old saying goes, "One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter." Hamas like the PLO in their actions against Israel are to free themselves. Be careful to consider that when noting their Islamism and terrorist acts that are very similar to the American revolutionary war.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 12:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

What kind of bullshit IS that?! Hamas's SELF-PROCLAIMED goal is not to "free themselves", but to destroy Israel and establish an Islamic state on its territory -- so this DOES make them an Islamic terrorist group! And which of the Founding Fathers had ever called for the destruction of Great Britain, may I ask?! 24.5.122.13 (talk) 05:35, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me but any attack by a group called Islamist Jihad (as in Palestinian Islamic Jihad) is obviously an Islamist terror attack and must be included, even if you have a ridiculous position on Hamas. I am hoping someone else will do this since there are so many. They can be found at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_suicide_attacks. Hamas is not a government because they do no represent a recognized country. It explicitly aims to destroy a legitimate country by attacking its civilians, and so did the PLO. This is not at all like the Boston Tea Party, where nobody died btw. That is the definition of a terrorist attack and it is for political, if not (overtly) religious aims. However, it is for religious aims because, for instance, they do not aim attacks at Jordan, Lebanon and Syria where they are held in refugee camps. Why is this? Because they are already Muslim countries. In addition, even if you don't want to include the rocket attacks on Israel, quite clearly killing athletes at olympic games and hijacking airplanes are terrorist attacks, perpetrated by Muslims against civilians. When does Muslim because Islamist? These should be included https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Terrorist_attacks_attributed_to_Palestinian_militant_groups or at the very LEAST mentioned at the bottom to also refer to. Also WHY are the recent beheadings, attacks on Yazidis and other Kurds not included? Oopsiedoop (talk) 13:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)oopsiedoop

Protected edit request on 21 December 2014

The 2014 Sydney hostage crisis is classified as "terrorist attack" by using LA Times and Herald Sun, neither of which directly label the crisis as such. Remove the entry from the list? George Ho (talk) 21:23, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. You're the one who asked for the protection in the first place. It can live at the WP:WRONGVERSION until an agreement is reached. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:24, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Can I erase this whole thread instead? --George Ho (talk) 21:25, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Why? Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:28, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

The way I did looks embarrassing, and I don't like it archived. --George Ho (talk) 21:31, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I suppose you can if you really want to, but it will remain publicly visible in this page's history. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:37, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll revisit this when consensus will be reached. --George Ho (talk) 21:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 22 December 2014

Whish to add entry : Boko Haram bomb kills 20 at bus station. http://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa/2014/12/deadly-blast-at-nigeria-bus-station-20141222122023301934.html Eduardo-wikiedits (talk) 13:49, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level and/or your user rights have changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:47, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Opening up the criteria question

″So you disagree with criterion (b) above that the attack should be motivated by perceived Islamic religious or political goals? Or do you think all terrorist attacks against Israel by Islamists are motivated by Islamic religious or political goals even when roughly equivalent acts by, e.g. the PLO or Abu Nidal are not? What criterion would you use to decide which attacks on Israel by Palestinian groups are appropriate, and what effect would that have on the general inclusion criteria?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 12:24, 21 April 2014 (UTC)″

In the current situation the article includes 37 attacks of in India, the majority of which have no attached articles. This is being done, while the ongoing kashmir conflict still serves as the major excuse for many of the attacks, and the Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts has a major religious aspect as well.

While no one has raised the question of India, ONLY ONE ATTACK ON ISRAEL IS INCLUDED and seems the article just excludes it altogether, until someone will proves without a shadow of doubt attacks it has been maid on an Islamic basis. Although it's a good thing Wikipedia seeks to be idealistic with Islamic terrorism on Israel, It should do so with everything equally...

Regarding Israel, perhaps it's important to mention a few basic facts: Islamic Jihad Movement in Palestine and Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades state clearly their goal is to "destroy the State of Israel and establish a sovereign, Islamic Palestinian state"Islamic Jihad Movement in Palestine. And when they refer to the Palestinian people they do so only "...under the sacred Islamic teachings"Al Qassam's home page. These groups are labeled as terrorist organizations by almost the entire world. In addition Hamas is actually an official Muslim Brotherhood branch, who's ultimate goal is to "...eliminating and destroying westren civilization...".(page 7 article 4). It lunched suecide bombing before it was elected in Gaza, and so the claim it's attacks are "state-like" are absurd, unless you wish to make the same claim on isis, when they form a kind of country. Many other facts show a strong connection between all terrorist attacks done by the mentioned above groups and an Islamic goal. For example the fact many of them have been done against official PLO decision, and that most of the attackers cry a religious prayer the moment of attack. I can continue in citing a few opinions of Palestinian researchers who study the issue, and link these three groups directly to an Islamic goal.

I wish someone would do the same with groups like Jaish-e-Mohammed in India. Their main goal is also pseudo-nationalist, seeking independence only as a "holy war"."Focus" article 3

Hope we can continue in rebuilding this page, for the sake of accuracy. 19:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Id.ma.co (talk • contribs)

Copycat Crime

The entry "January 11, 2015", the attack on the "Hamburger Morgenpost" newspaper is not clarified yet. It could also be a copycat crime. This list should only contain attacks in which the offender is known. M.Serdar (talk) 08:42, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Sydney hostage situation

There aren't sources directly calling the hostage crisis a terrorist act. Why including it? --George Ho (talk) 11:16, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Pinging Pmj, MShabazz, and BEARtruth89. --George Ho (talk) 23:49, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:01, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Surely the prime minister himself describing the attacker as a terrorist is sufficient?

I'm not particularly attached to this categorisation; I simply feel it accurately reflects the nature of the attack. --pmj (talk) 00:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

How is forcing hostages to raise the Islamic flag part of a terrorist attack? --George Ho (talk) 00:41, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Your question was about nomenclature; the flag is orthogonal to this discussion. --pmj (talk) 07:00, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Anyway, why take Tony Abbott's word seriously? Haven't you read about his reputation? --George Ho (talk) 07:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I try to not let politics steer my editing.

Unfortunately, in contrast to natural disasters, there is no authority like the USGS to classify terrorism. So we must rely on journalists and politicians. --pmj (talk) 10:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Abbott's views are reliable? Journalists haven't called the situation a terrorist act. What about politicians? --George Ho (talk) 10:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Journalists have described the attack as terrorism, and Monis as a terrorist; e.g. The Sydney Morning Herald, news.com.au.

What in your opinion differentiates this from other lone wolf terrorist attacks such as the recent one in Canada? --pmj (talk) 12:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Aussies like this woman can define the man as terrorist. Other people say, otherwise, that the man has mental issues. --George Ho (talk) 17:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Just like in Canada. But the act was terrorism, wasn't it? --pmj (talk) 19:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Labeling it as "terrorism" goes against WP:LABEL guideline and WP:NOR policy. I re-read the definition terror, but I don't think I want to cite the definition per that policy. Nevertheless, using 'terrorism' poorly goes against a definition of 'terror'. Fears during the hostage situation wasn't that "intense" or "extreme", was it? One lone wolf didn't cause "extreme fear" under Oxford definition, did he? --George Ho (talk) 20:23, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Again, how is this different from the Canadian terrorist attack? Violence, ideologically motivated, deliberately targeting civilians, intended to spread a message through fear. In fact the Sydney attack was more blatant, e.g. Monis' demands for live interviews. What would make this not a terrorist attack? --pmj (talk) 22:16, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Robbers or hostage perpetrators also have demanded live interviews, have they not? John Wojtowicz was a bank robber, not a terrorist, but did he cause intense fear on victims and/or hostages? I'm uncertain of whether he did demand live interviews. By the way, don't use the film Dog Day Afternoon as your only reliable source. --George Ho (talk) 22:41, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Wait, I have more to say. Man Haron Monis is labeled a terrorist, but does that make the event a terrorist act? Saying so without certain verification is unjust labeling and would violate the principles of WP:V and WP:NOR. --George Ho (talk) 22:49, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Wojtowicz wasn't politically/ideologically motivated, and didn't aim to create widespread fear by claiming that he had planted bombs across the city.

You originally stated that there "aren't sources directly calling the hostage crisis a terrorist act". I have furnished some (e.g. "Monis' long history of political statements clearly made it an act of terrorism", The Sydney Morning Herald). Therefore, please close this fruitless dispute. --pmj (talk) 23:03, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Umm... please read the whole hostage article; it describes the dispute of labeling the crime. --George Ho (talk) 23:06, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Some people deny global warming, but that doesn't make it any less real.

Stop moving the goalposts. The dispute was about references, the references have been provided, so the dispute is over. --pmj (talk) 23:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps we can reduce too many sources into several or few highly reliable ones. Then add quotes within <ref></ref>. --George Ho (talk) 23:30, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, the incident was listed at List of terrorist incidents, 2014 but then removed per other talk page. --George Ho (talk) 03:54, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

On 15 January 2015, Australia's Treasurer Joe Hockey declared the siege in Sydney's Martin Place as a terrorist incident.[1] BruceSpider (talk) 04:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

2014 Nantes Attack

One of the sources, used in the article Nantes car attack itself claims that: "Police dismissed initial suggestions that the driver, thought to be in his thirties, had shouted God is Great, saying they found a notebook in his vehicle with “incoherent, suicidal phrases” and: "officials said the incident in Dijon was “absolutely not a terrorist attack”, and that the driver suffered from a “long-lasting and severe psychological disorder."

This means that we cannot classify this an "islamic terror act". We don't even know if the perpetrator was muslim. I think he may be, since there wouldn't be the mentioning here if he wasn't, but the encyclopaedic style of Wikipedia is not meant to challenge political correctness, but to reproduce public/expert opinions on issues. Hence i will try to delete the 2014 Nancy shooting.

Saflid (talk) 23:40, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

early 70ies Attacks

what about this ones?

• February 18, 1969 El Al Flight 432 attack
• February 21, 1970 Swissair Flight 330 Zürich to Tel Aviv and Austrian Airlines Caravelle OE-LCU, „Steiermark” from Frankfurt to Vienna
• September 6, 1970 Dawson's Field hijackings (Skyjack Sunday)

NukeOperator (talk) 10:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

move to List of Islamist terrorist attacks

in order to clarify the difference between Islamic faith, civilization, people, and the ideology of Islamism.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support. I'm actually amazed this hasn't been done before now - present title is clearly in breach of NPOV. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:55, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support. The scope of the list is alarmingly vague. A title change would be an improvement. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 26 March 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Wbm1058 (talk) 14:25, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

---

List of Islamic terrorist attacks → List of Islamist terrorist attacks – Clarify the distinction between Islamic faith, civilization, people, and the ideology of Islamism that unites the acts of terrorism on this list. E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support. I'm actually amazed this hasn't been done before now - present title is clearly in breach of NPOV. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support Note: Nominator's support This List is clearly about Islamism not Islam.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:10, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support As in preceding section. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:15, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support Most Muslims wouldn't want to be associated with it so WP:AT, with text "..The title indicates what the article is about..", applies. In the article Islamic terrorism#Ideology clearly presents Islamists as the faction behind terrorist attacks. The following section, Islamic terrorism#Criticism of Islamic terrorist ideology, then demonstrates a high level of disapproval of Islamic/Islamist terrorist attacks among Muslims. WP:LABEL (also accessed by WP:TERRORIST) speaks of value laden labels yet, in this situation, it can be argued that Islamic is a more value laden label even than terrorist. Many Muslims roundly condemn terrorist action. Searches indicate about half the level of hits for "Islamist terrorism" and "Islamist terrorist" in comparison to searches on "Islamic terrorism" and "Islamic terrorist". The Islamist terms have a far more specific meaning on a subject that is not representative of Islam. GregKaye 19:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Islamic Attacks

Heres a list of 25000 Islamic attacks from 9/11 till today

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.54.179.63 (talk) 00:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

"The religion of peace" is not a serious or scientific site, but a opinion-based website with a very strong bias towards anti-islamic viewpoints. Not worth wikipedia, unreliable source Saflid (talk) 13:15, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Is there any scholarly source that is as comprehensive as the one on religionofpeace.com? Their list represents a massive amount of work. CouldThatBe (talk) 22:37, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Ali Muhammad Brown self-identified jihadist not a terrorist attack?

This case is being disputed by an editor who disagrees that someone who is self-identified Islamist who was convicted of bank fraud, most likely in support of terrorists in Somalia who says he is motivated by wars against Muslim countries is an islamist terrorist. Not every case in this list has be declared a terrorist attack by a national government if there is enough evidence to establish motive. Subject has told authorities that he is deeply religious islamist who murdered 4 as vengeance for lives lost in wars in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan. Same editor is trying to claim that Seattle Times and CNN are not reliable sources and a serial killer of 4, including 2 LGBT in the name of militant Islamism is not notable. Bachcell (talk) 14:24, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

• April 27 - June 25, 2015 Ali Muhammad Brown killed 3 men in Seattle and one in New Jersey. Self-identified jihadist justified attacks as "vengeance for lives are lost every day...[in] Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan"

Where in your source does it say that he is a self-identified Islamist? or a terrorist? Please read WP:BLP. The problem isn't that CNN and the Seattle Times aren't reliable sources, and you know it. The problem is the other so-called sources you used at Ali Muhammad Brown: Heavy.com, Thealternativepress.com, Watermarkonline.com, Newsbusters.org, and Siteintelgroup.com. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:22, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

References

John Allen Muhammad DC Sniper case

John Allen Muhammad is absent from this list. It's pretty much a textbook case of a man who converted to Islam and joined the Nation of Islam who along with his seventeen-year-old partner, Lee Boyd Malvo, carried out the Beltway sniper attacks of October 2002, killing at least 10 people, plus another 14 killed or wounded in serial killing spree. After his arrest, authorities also claimed that Muhammad admitted that he admired and modeled himself after Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda, and approved of the September 11 attacks. Most counterjihad pundits make a direct link to jihad. Yet most mainstream media sources, and the currrent article go to great lengths to avoid any connection to religion based terrorism. It is very similar to the killing spree of Ali Muhammad Brown who is a self-described jihadist who called 4 murders which resembled random crimes rather than terrorist attacks justified killings Discussion? Bachcell (talk) 20:06, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

As usual, it comes down to reliable sources. Where are the reliable sources that describe Muhammad as an Islamist or a terrorist? Keep in mind that what self-appointed "counterjihad pundits" write in their blogs are not reliable sources. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:13, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

References

I keep seeing more and more additions to this list without many details being offered. I think each attack should be supplied with a reference as a verification that this event occurred. It shouldn't be difficult as military attacks usually get coverage in major newspapers. As it is now, much of the content on this page could be challenged because these claims are unsupported. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:17, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Just as at Christian terrorism, every entry should have one or more references where the attack is identified as terrorist and Islamist in nature. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree as well. I just created a page notice for this list based loosely on {{Editnotice for lists of people}}. I think the ability to edit the page notice is limited, so please let me know if you have any suggestions about improving it. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 15:44, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Please name certain events that concern you, regarding alledged missing verification. As far as i can see every incident listed on thise page has a verifiable source or is innerlinked to a special page for the incident with further detail about it. Two criterias need to be met so that an incident can be put on this site

1. It needs to be a terror attack. everybody commonly knows what a terror attack is and how it qualifies for. a terror attack is a violent attack made by an individual or a group fighting for a certain goal.

2. The incident needs to have an islamist backround/goal. also islamist is a phrase everybody can understand or at least get information by google or wikipedia itself. it is not that "stiff" to "qualify" for this site. these two indicators needs to be given and hence you can add an incident on this site. no "official" source has to call it as something. it is sufficient if an incident qualifies by fitting to those two criterias.Joobo (talk) 14:20, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Please see WP:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists#Citing sources, which says in part:

Stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines for articles, including verifiability and citing sources. This means statements should be sourced where they appear, they must provide inline citations if they contain any of the four kinds of material absolutely required to have citations.

"Sourced where they appear" doesn't mean links to other Wikipedia articles, it means sources in this article.

Also, relying on what "everybody knows" or what "everybody can understand" is called original research on Wikipedia, and it is not permitted. We make determinations on the basis of reliable sources. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:05, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I cannot see what the problem should be.

This wp site contains a list of islamist terror attacks. All incidents listed are sourced or even better, have an own particular article about themselves.

Unless someone can depict a certain or even several incident he or she got a problem with, since it is aledgedly not verifiabile enough, is free to mention it in this discussion site or can look up the incident itself and bring in the found information that can lead to a, either letting the incident stay on the page, or deletion of the incident. Everyone is encouraged to participate and discuss about certain events in case it does not meet the two above mentioned criterias for getting listed on this site. That should be itJoobo (talk) 19:18, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

You can't see what the problem is? The problem is lack of sources, here, in this article, as required by Wikipedia policy. Period. End of story. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:10, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

It seems that you try to troll here on this page arent you? You permanently talk about reliable source, yet you do not mention a single specific case in which you see a lack of reliable source. I can tell you, you probably will not find one. If you have a problem with a certain incident on this page due to an alledged lack of source which might lead to the conclusion that the incident does not meet the two needed criterias A - Terror attack and B - Islamism; you are free to mention, research and discuss about it."Period. End of story." Otherwise your ragetalk here doesnt make any particular sense not even for you. Joobo (talk) 13:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

What can and should be put on this list what not

because there are several times when some people, but mostly malik edited and deleted content i want to start the discussion what should be put onto this list and what not, though it is actually pretty clear but apparently not clear enough. i just neglect the fact that common courtesey failed the last times, when wikipedia users just deleted content without any logic or actual reason and did not even started a discussion about several incidents. anyway here we go there are exactly 2 criterias of what an incident has to content for getting on this list.

A the incident needs to be a terror attack- a terror attack is " violent attack by a groupp, organization, or individual to achieve a certain, political, religious or ideological goal". that can be everything from a suicide bomb, a mass killing, a chemical attack, a stabbing or just a beat up. a "violent incident to achieve a goal". B Islamism if an incident is a terror attack, which is defined and drafted above it is also important that its goal is an islamistic one. that means the terror attack had the purpose to achieve a islamist purpose by its violence, may it be to intimidate critics of islam, to establish a new government or to fulfill a certain "wish" of an islam prophet. it can be various things but it needs to be islamic.

IF criteria A+B are given than the incident can be put onto the list. normally nobody should have an issue with this, since that is just what the list is about. now there might be individuals who claim that the killing of a bangladeshi bloger because he criticized islamiism is no terror attack, merely there is no "source" who proves it. WRONG. there is none who has the ultimate "power" to say this was a terror attack or this was not, BUT THE INCIDENT ITSELF. if is foolish to say only because nobody mentions the specific word "terror" in an article about 9/11 it is none. a terror attack is ONLY a word. a word that describes and combines a violent incident to achieve an ideological goal. we cannot expand the name of this list to lets say "list of islamist murders, bombings, stabbings, killings, shootings, hackings, kidnappings, hijackings, beatings and slicings"..... it is just bounded together in one word. TERRORISM. it is like to establish a list of lets say "murders of journalists", and then on the news it says a journalist was killed, he was stabbed to death in front of his house. The "undemocratic group against journalism" claimed the responsibility for the incident. but then one does not put the incident on the list of "murdered journalists" merely because the term "murder" was not said in the news, though it clearly was one. this is just absolutely incorrent and pure bigotry. the incident has to qualify itself fot criteria A and B that means what the incident is about. Not what some journalist say or not say. this is all i have to say, and i actually dont know why it needs to be said, since it is just all common logic and logical in itself. i wont resist to put the deleted incidents who qualify for both criterias back on the list. please engage in any comment.Joobo (talk) 17:41, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Picking one from column A and one from Column B does not constitute a reliable source, just as typing comments in capitals does not provide a stronger or more compelling argument. Just a louder one. Carptrash (talk) 18:52, 12 May 2015 (UTC).

What are you talking about. I am not picking of anything. There is an incident, and if the incident is a terror attack with an islamist backround then it qualifies for both needed crieterias. and by even mentioning my capital letters shows that you dont even care about what i write but rather mock about my writing style. so much about your importance regarding this discussion. if you dont have to say anything towards it then better let it be.Joobo (talk) 22:00, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

As several editors indicated in the References section above, incidents in the list should have reliable sources that indicate the attack was both Islamist and terrorist. Our policies on Verifiability and Original research do not permit us to substitute our judgment for that of reliable sources on this matter, and our guideline says those sources should be on this page, not other pages.

I recommend (once again) that you read WP:Verifiability, which says that "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:07, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

"As several editors indicated in the References section above, incidents in the list should have reliable sources that indicate the attack was both Islamist and terrorist." and i agree 100% with you on this one. the incidents need to be verifiable and fitting into the needed categories. i never added an incident and a source in which it did not become clear that the listed incident was a terror attack with an islamist backround. i was even absolutely confused that you had an issue with the sydney hostage crisis, since it just fitted absolutely both criterias. original research would be to not mention the incident because one might assume(original researching) it was done by a deranged person without an actial islamist backround. so it is actually the other way around.

"Our policies on Verifiability and Original research do not permit us to substitute our judgment for that of reliable sources on this matter, and our guideline says those sources should be on this page, not other pages."yep again no original research. i never judged by myself about an incident and conluded that it was, lets say one with an islamist backround eventhough it also could have been a "normal" murder. but all sources i used clearly stated that it were, referring to the last added cases, all islam critical bloggers and activists who have been murdered by islamic militants, so what does this have to do with Originial research, when i just took a normal verifiable source? the sources clearly indicated that it was no "normal" assault because they wanted to rob his pocketmoney, but a killing due to the activism. if they kill them because they dont like the things they say it is a terror attack, because the murderers want to achieve an ideological goal. and in these cases it were islamic goals. that is it. killing to shut their atheist/secular mouths = islamist terrorism. idk what one can argue about this, it is not me who writes this but the sources themselves. and i have to correct you, you dont always have to add an source on this site, but it needs to be sourced. and if a source is a link to the specific terror attack article(which itself is sourced) then it is a source as well. have a look on this. the list of islamist terror attacks does not include any Direct quotations so far, nor any statements that are likely to be challenged(and the sydney hostage crisis is nothing to be challenged likely, or do you also believe 911 was an inside job? if you do then it would be original research...), nor it is about contentious material about living persons. so yes everything needs to be verifiable. on all incidents you need to be able to check, either by a source or an particular(itself referenced) wikipediarticle.

"I recommend (once again) that you read WP:Verifiability, which says that "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." " and here i agree with you again. i think the dispute is not that i dont source but rather that you claim the source i use is not verifiable. that is at least how after all it now looks to me, since you still dont display any specific incident and ony talk in general terms. so i am wondering why you question the verifiability of cnn or bbc? i am really curious about this. http://edition.cnn.com/2015/05/12/asia/bangladesh-blogger-killed/ remember criteria A terroristic attack(violence to achieve certain political goal) and B islamist backround is needed. so lets see and please have a decent look on this.

the linked cnn article mentions the blogger was murdered by islamist terrorist because of his secular activism. i cannot see any OG in here neither a lack of credibility for cnn. Joobo (talk) 22:00, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Please try to be more concise. It's impossible to reply to such a wall of text.

Take a look at this edit of yours, which I reverted because its sources didn't identify the attacks as terrorist attacks:

1. The killing of Ahmed Rajib Haider was sourced with this and this, neither of which identified the attack on Haider as a terrorist attack.
2. The killing of AKM Shafiul Islam was sourced with this, which probably isn't a reliable source at all, and quotes the police as saying "We are working on several possible motives behind the killing." In other words, the source does not say it was an Islamist terrorist attack.
3. The killing of Avijit Roy was sourced with this, which doesn't identify the attack on Roy as a terrorist attack.
4. The killing of Washiqur Rahman was sourced with this, which doesn't identify the attack on Rahman as a terrorist attack or his killers as Islamists.
5. The killing of Ananta Bijoy Das was sourced with this, which doesn't identify the attack on Das as a terrorist attack or his killers as Islamists.

Do you see a pattern here? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:08, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

malik it seems that you have a problem with the word "terrorism". you have a problem that the sources dont explicitly talk of terrorism, but one have to keep in mind that terrorism is just a term that contents all sorts of violence attacks to achieve a certain political reason. like i said if an article talks about a violence incident lets say a seperatist group killed an "enemy" (let it be a blogger against the seperatism movement) then it is a terror attack, even if the news agency does not uses the term terrorism but the incident itself qualifies as such. you see the pattern here? a terror attack is no terror attack when someone mentions the word terror attack in a report, speech or news article but if the incident itself is a terrorattack by its way and intention. that is the thing. and killing a blogger because of an ideology is a terror attack. do you want me to contact the interior ministry of bangladesh to ask about it or cnn and the other news agencies and ask them if they would talk about "terror" eventhough it clearly is a terror attack? it is just a word a term. the sources clearly indicate the attacks as terror attacks with an islamist backround. just take the second source for the rajib haider murder, that even states the killers were linked to al quaida. the sources display the incident as islamist terror attacks.

1. the attack was identified as a terror attack by pointing out the intention of the attack and the link of the attackers to an islamist group. qualifies.
2. why is it no reliable source? it mentions the attack and points out to several media articles about it, stating the conclusion of an islamist terror attack, particularly the last one that shows that islamists claimed to be behind the attack. qualifies.
3. this article claims he was murdered by extremists who stated they would kill him as soon as he comes back to bangladesh. furthermore the article claims a tweet of an islamist terror group reacting to the attack with "Target Down". saying it was no islamist terror attack , but it also could have been something else like a "normal robbery" would be original research neglecting the facts given. qualifies
4. did you read the article malik? the article clearly mentions the apprehended two killers were in an islamic school and followed an order by a third person due to the "religious duty", if that is no islamism than 9/11 was it neither. qualifies.
5. the last source does not ultimately identifies tha attack as an islamist one, yet it is very likely. on this last one you could be right with original research . but instead of deleting all of it how about you or someone else does more research on it or puts the [citation needed] behind? anyway in this news article the incident was, how you like it the best if you dont want to transfer the word murder under the term of terrorism by yourself, called by word "Islamist extremists" [2]. qualifies Joobo (talk) 13:32, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

1. No. We do not get to interpret the words of an author or commentator, to infer that s/he meant that the intention behind an attack was terrorism. The source itself needs to explicitly call the attack a terrorist attack.
2. This is a list of Islamist terrorist attacks, not a list of "Suspected Islamic militant" attacks. If the police say they are investigating motives, then motives have not been definitely established, have they? This source seems to be a blog or news aggregator - also not sure if this is a WP:RS.

Don't have time right now to read your other bullet point sources, but as to your last bullet point - we do not include material because it was "likely". Read [[WP:V], please. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:43, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the word "terrorism", Joobo, I have a problem with editors who think their own judgment is superior to that of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Have you read WP:No original research yet? Based on your arguments, it doesn't seem like you have. Or if you have, maybe you just don't "get the point". This arguing in circles has been going on for more than ten days (see References above, your Talk page, and mine) and you still don't understand that if reliable sources don't describe an attack as both terrorist and Islamist, it doesn't belong on the list. If you persist in your refusal to "get the point", I will have no choice but to bring your behavior to WP:AN/I. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:12, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

? it is no original research malik. regarding the "reliable source" you brought up, i think cnn is pretty at the high end site if it comes to verifiability and reliability. and furthermore the articles claim it was an islamist terror attack. you probably refer to the "Synthesis of published material" in which you draw a line from A to B and conclude C by yourself. yet this is allright if you do and the article does it as well, and here in these cases the sources are also doing it. it is actually the only thing they do when saying there already have been several incidents by islamic extremists and this time it was an attack as well announced by islamists and that religious fundamentalism is a big issue in bangladesh. it is literally a+b=c. it is just not written each time "the following incident is officially classified by our directing journalists as so-called "islamist terror"". But all the sources indicate and identfy and hence discuss the incidents as islamist terror. if a racist seperatist group kills a "problematic" journalist-> it could be put onto the list(if it would exist) called "nationalist terror attacks against journalists" as well as if radical muslim extremists kill a blogger and hence the incident can be put onto the "list of islamist terror attacks" both is definetly correct, eventhough both times the phrases terror and islamism, respectively nationalism is not mentioned at all. i have the feeling you merely go onto the source site, press CTRL+F, type in the terms "islamist" and "terror" and if nothing or only one of it pops up it immediately does not qualifies for this list. but this is just not right and has nothing to do with original research at all. i dont just conclude anything else by myself, than what the articles literally claim. you just insinuate something i dont do.i am not original researching. and yes i read the original research WP page, but it never says(though it is apparently what you claim here) the exact words has to be mentioned to fulfill conclusion of C. it says "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article." and in these cases the sources definetly draw a connection between a and b. so either you claim original research also includes what i mentioned above which you claim , that the excact phrases terms and classifications also need to be given but then malik you have to edit the page of original research please, or you claim the sources as cnn are bringing up false connections and cnn andthe other sources are not reliable. i dont try to be cocky but put the points into the fitting light. so no og and no unverifiable sources. as soon there are doubts about the incidents allright. dont put them on this list. but there are no doubts or concerns even at the farest sight regarding the bangladeshi atheist and blogger attacks. greetings.Joobo (talk) 20:37, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Please can you remove the link to the Sydney siege

This edit [3] by User:Joobo added a link to the 2014 Sydney hostage crisis, claiming it as an Islamic terrorist attack, when it was not. It was a criminal action taken by a man who so happened to be an Arab Muslim. The aim of the hostage taking was for him to get his ex girlfriend to have charges against her dropped. There was discussion in the media claiming it to be a terrorist action, especially amongst commentators from USA, but it was proven definitively later on, and agreed to by everyone on Wikipedia, that it was not a terrorist action. So this does not belong here. Now, if we were to have a list of Islamic criminal actions that were mistakenly thought to be terrorist actions, it could belong there. Yes, he was a radical Muslim. But it fits no current definition of terrorism. If in the future the definition of terrorism changes to mean any criminal action by someone of the Muslim faith, then, yes, it would be terrorism, but I sincerely hope that we never get that far into racism that that becomes a reality. A lot of people get confused about what terrorism really means, especially given that using current definitions of terrorism, people like Nelson Mandella, Che Guevera, Vladimir Lenin and Fidel Castro were all terrorists, and I think that it is important that we don't put people into lists like this who were not regarded as terrorists per the then agreed definition of terrorism. A criminal is not a terrorist, even if he happens to be Muslim, even if he happens to be an Arab Muslim, even if he happens to be a radical Arab Muslim, and not even if the Prime Minister of the country pretends that he is a terrorist just so as to curry favour with USA. He is a terrorist if he is performing an act of terror for a political aim. Getting your girlfriend busted out of jail is not a terrorist action. Mister Sneeze A Lot (talk) 11:47, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

This is completely wrong, this arab-muslim conducted an islamist terror attack. YOU even say " Yes, he was a radical Muslim[radical means extremism and extremism of islam is called islamism and the term is islamist so he was an islamist or what would you call a islamist then if not a radical muslim???? he was an islamist end of story]. But it fits no current definition of terrorism[hostage taking is terrorism it 100% fits into the category!]." criteria A terror attack - "hostage taking" criteria B islamism - this individual forced hostages to press the jihad flag against the windows. you are a complete bias bashing about the united states, to get your worldview onto the internet NOT in wikipedia. you are the biased neglecting the facts and cannot or do not want to face the reality. this is wikipedia no usa and 9/11 conspiracy blog website. Joobo (talk) 13:23, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Please try to remain civil, Joobo. You're engaging in original research once again, applying your own definition of terrorism. It seems to me the question of whether it was a terrorist attack is not settled, but there have been several discussions at Talk:2014 Sydney hostage crisis where consensus led to the article's removal from terrorism categories and templates. I'm not sure why we need to debate the issue again here. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:14, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Malik. It was debated on the talk page (and in real life) some 6 months ago. They even had a coronial inquiry about it, at least part of which focused around whether or not it was a terrorist attack. Just because something a criminal act was done by a Muslim does not make it a terrorist attack. Go back 20 years ago and nobody would have even briefly considered this to be terrorist, as nothing about it looked like terrorism. But go back 20 years ago and terrorism was usually a domestic issue. This changing definition does confuse people sometimes, and that is why it is important to illustrate that that incident does not represent any version of a terrorist incident. Mister Sneeze A Lot (talk) 05:36, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Please remove the link to the 2014 Sydney hostage crisis as there is consensus, both on Wikipedia and in real life, including a coronial inquiry, that it was NOT a terrorist action. Joobo broke WP:3RR in adding it 3 times, and it was reverted twice, but this page was protected, by accident, in a form that has this incorrectly added. Mister Sneeze A Lot (talk) 05:41, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• The police certainly treated it as terrorism; and the type of terrorism was clearly Islamist. As did officials. Australia’s top spy boss Duncan Lewis the Director-General of Security of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation said of Monis two months after the event: "He said at the time that he undertook the siege that he was inspired by ISIL. Had the flag, all of that sort of thing. Yes, I think he was a terrorist."[4] ISIL is clearly an Islamist terrorist organization. Prime Minister Tony Abbott said there were lessons to be learned from this "brush with terrorism".[5] Many RSs have referred to it as both Islamist and terrorism.[6] Others have debated whether it is lone wolf terrorism, or terrorist-organization-inspired terrorism, or terrorist-organization-directed-terrorism, but the dispute has largely been about the type of terrorism. And Islamist is clearly the flavor. Even lone-wolf terrorism is terrorism, and nobody disputes that he declared allegiance to a terrorist organization, or that the Prime Minister and head of ASIO declared it terrorism. There is RS support for it being treated as Islamist terrorism and highest-level-government support, so while not exclusively viewed that way, for cat purposes it should be reflected inter alia as Islamist terrorism. Epeefleche (talk) 06:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Hi Epeefleche. The issue has already been litigated. While consensus can change, I think the appropriate place to have that discussion is Talk:2014 Sydney hostage crisis. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Hi, Malik. I've raised my view in both places, as discussion is ongoing in both places. And the issue is not precisely the same in both places. As you say, first of all, consensus can change. Also, new facts can come to the fore. As has been the case here. For example, I am not clear that any prior "litigation" considered the fact that the Director-General of Security of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation said of Monis two months after the event: "He said at the time that he undertook the siege that he was inspired by ISIL. Had the flag, all of that sort of thing. Yes, I think he was a terrorist." That bears directly on the discussion elsewhere, about terrorism, and also on the issue here, about Islamic terrorism (the two overlap, but are not complete parallel). --Epeefleche (talk) 18:43, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the entry. If consensus develops to include it, please reactivate — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:22, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

There is consensus. consensus is that given the facts and information the attack was an terror attack with an islamist backround. no reason do doubt it. please put the incident back on page until no clear evidence is given to support the conclusion that it was no islamist terror attack. spreading doubts, distracintg and believing in conspiracy theories as mister sneeze like claiming the US is behind the decision of the australian government to count this incident as an islamist terror attack is just mere bias wrong. Joobo (talk) 12:47, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Mister Sneeze A Lot says there is no reason to call the sydney hostage taking an islamist terror attack. the point is, it is qualified as an islamist terror attack not because the attacker was a muslim, no but because the attack itself had an islamist backround. for instance how do you want to explain the jihadi flag that was pressed against the window, what else than islamism was the purpose of it?? you mister sneeze dont engange into any discussion of certain points, just distracting but dont say what the flag thing for example was about. and i read the discussions of the talkpage of the sydney hostage crisis very well. but so far the evidence is that the hostage cisis was an islamist terror attack. original research would be the other way around, og would mean to say it was no islamist terror attack because [insert several reasons like deranged mind etc...]. the facts to this moment point out to an islamist terror attack. it definetly should remain on this page because it just fits into both criteras. the points Epeefleche mentioned have my full agreement. Joobo (talk) 12:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Joobo, please read carefully. This debate was already conducted, and it's over. You can't create a local consensus that the Sydney attack belongs on this page when the editors of that page have already decided it shouldn't be categorized as a terrorist attack. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

It is over? the last entry regarding it was made today... and guess by whom by mister sneeze himself. how can this be over? and i could not read that it was "consensus" anyhwere to say it was no islamist terror attack at all. there was just a guy who said something like "some people see it as a terror attack some dont" but what sort of consensus is this? there was no actual shaare of arguments or detailed explanation of the incident. there was never argued about the flag or the alliance between the hostage taker and isis. nothing, just Nothing about it! there is nothing over, just mister sneeze and some others saying that (lol what an irony) others say it was no terror attack. not even saying why or explaining. sorry but this is not how this works , by this way of working you could apply this pattern to literally every islamist terror attack even 9/11 or charlie hebdo, since there are always some "experts" who have doubts because this and that. but this does not mean that the incidents may not be sheduled as islamist terror attacks. where will we end up if this way of working takes overhand? no there is no consensus that it is unclear wether it was a terror attack or none, at all. i am still waiting for the explanation of terror attack expert mister sneeze what the flag was about or how he classifies the declared alliance of the hostage taker with isis, since these points are not explained in the sydney hostage crisis talk page nowhere.Joobo (talk) 21:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

As to whether the discussion is "over," please see my above comments, with all due respect. Epeefleche (talk) 21:55, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Please direct discussions about Sydney Siege being designated as terrorism to the 2014 Sydney hostage crisis article page

Debating this here is a bit of a sneaky way to do it. There is already consensus at the main page, so the correct way to do things is to debate it there. Debating it here, which only a few people are following, is not an honest way to do it. Mister Sneeze A Lot (talk) 14:16, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• I'm putting this in a sub-header, as it relates directly to the prior conversation. First off -- the issues are not completely the same, as pointed out above. Second point -- discussion on the overlap part is taking part there. Third point - Consensus can change. Fourth point - the old conversation did not include on-point, more recent pertinent information. Fifth point - There is nothing sneaky; this discussion points to that one, and the two cover to some extent distinctly different elements. --Epeefleche (talk) 21:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • The "sneaky" part is that there is already consensus over there, and this is merely a list. A list is merely meant to document what is agreed to in an existing article page. Thus, if they wish to add it here, they must first change it over there. Pretending that anyone removing it from this list is doing so by themselves is manipulative, when all that they/we are doing is to reflect consensus in the article page. Oh, and in real life, outside of Wikipedia, consensus is established to a far greater level than is suggested on Wikipedia. There was a coronial inquiry about it. That's pretty definitive. Mister Sneeze A Lot (talk) 15:08, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

• Did you read what I wrote above? Even the very first point?? First off -- the issues are not completely the same, as pointed out above. As to your "real world" comment, in the real world the head of the country's security agency called it terrorism, as did the Prime Minister. Epeefleche (talk) 20:14, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Move to Delete this Article from WP

Articles such as this one are misleading in themselves. They give the impression of an organized Muslim conspiracy when such acts are done by Al Qaeda or Hezbollah for their own aims and belong in their specific terror lists; and, one is not known to conspire with the other. Therefore, it makes no sense to have their acts be considered as a common conspiracy. By compiling the current misleading list, we are only encouraging hate and violence against Muslims by radical militias. For example, the White Shooter, Dylann Roof, in the Charleston Church Shooting went to such websites to build up hate of African-Americans before he took nine innocent lives. Is is WP's intention to become such a hate site? It should not be. The views of the editors who are full of hate of Islam and Muslims should not be taken into account on this article. Besides the list here can be moved to their correct category, as I mentioned above: Hezbollah terrorism, Al Qaeda terrorism, etc. Before you say no, would WP have such an article listing crimes by Black Americans? We don't want to encourage the crazies by having such a misleading article. NiceAdam (talk) 06:18, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Read the policy WP:NOTCENSOR.

Wikimedia Projects serve the Information Needs of Individuals, Not Groups "it is important to note as essential the principle that Wikimedia projects exist to serve individuals, as individuals, in their full autonomy, and consequently, the projects, as a general rule, do not and should not consider as legitimate censorious demands by institutions, of any kind, political, commercial or voluntary claiming to represent those individuals, or making demands, which, in the community’s opinion, represent only their own interests"

-- Callinus (talk) 06:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood. This article, as previously mentioned by other editors fails NPOV. Second, it's not accurate in assuming all terrorist attacks are related. And, third, it makes WP a hate site like the one that NC shooter went to to get riled up against African-Americans; which also had incorrect info. The first two reasons are sufficient in of themselves. What is the value of this article exactly? We should remove all such articles: against Jews, Zionists, neocons, Hindus, Israel, etc. The are incorrect for similar reasons and are used by hate Groups.--NiceAdam (talk) 05:25, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Bifurcate the page into different parts.

When this page was created at that moment it was correct, but nowadays almost every week there is a notable terrorist incident in Syria, Iraq, Pakistan, Kashmir, even in Australia siege, Charlie Hebdo, Russia school massacre, Doha bombing, Afghanistan blasts, Suicide attacks.

It's impossible to keep everything in a single page. Due to this huge debate is going on what to keep, what not to keep. When we visit the main page, every week we see some massacre or blast in Libya, Nigeria, Somalia. there are editors and administrators who try to keep minimum incidents and there are people who try to keep maximum incidents. every Islamist terrorist attack which has an article in Wikipedia deserves to be here. But then this page will become very lengthy.

So I suggest we divide this into

• 1970 - 2000
• 2001 - 2010
• 2011 - 2015

Then every notable incident which has an article can be included.--C E (talk) 02:59, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

The editor above is now blocked, but I have at least broken the rather long "2010s" into 2 sections "2010 – 2014" & "2015 – 2019" on this same page. This should make updating a bit easier. This page is rather long, and has more than doubled in size this year, (diff - 32,250 bytes to 89,479 bytes), after being whittled down to 9,720 bytes on 21 April 2014‎. diff. 220 of ^Borg 06:29, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Why are only post-1980 incidents listed?

There were a number of Islamist terrorist attacks in the (mid) 1970s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaakovaryeh (talk • contribs) 06:32, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Yaakovaryeh Why?, because no one has added them yet! (WP:SOFIXIT) There may be a problem with WP:reliable sources which are needed for almost all WP content. There are other terrorist 'incident' lists like List of (non-state) terrorist incidents (1800 – 1969), and List of terrorist incidents, 1970 (and onwards) that may have usable entries. Take note of WP:Copying within Wikipedia if you borrow any content. 220 of ^Borg 05:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

220 of Borg Thank you. I was under the impression that the list was meant to be only post 1980 based on the lead saying:

"The following is a list of Islamist terrorist attacks that have received significant press coverage since 1980."

which I presumed implied that the list started at 1980 intentionally for some reason.

Thanks for the clarificaion

Yaakovaryeh (talk) 07:21, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Indents x 2 added above for clarity 220 of ^Borg 07:47, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

@Yaakovaryeh: Well, I didn't read that on the page first before replying to you did I, silly me! I was a bit distracted by some unsourced entries, many of which I have now removed. [7] I don't see any reason why the page should be so limited. Was that when 'Islamist terrorist attacks' first became notable? Should it then be called List of Islamist terrorist attacks since 1980 perhaps? Or is there another page covering pre–1980?

See my earlier comments here about the size of this page. 220 of ^Borg 07:47, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

220 of Borg I thought that might have happened, that's why I added that explanatory note, but perhaps I should have included that in my first post to begin with.

I don't really know much about this, I'm not an expert on the topic, and I have a feeling you're a 'more senior editor' than myself... Are there any rules WP regarding length of lists/articles? (indents x4 added 220 of ^Borg 11:13, 4 October 2015 (UTC))

About removing unsourced entries, when should one remove it as opposed to using a citation needed thingy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaakovaryeh (talk • contribs) 08:14, 4 October 2015‎

• There are guidelines about how long a page should get before it is WP:Split into separate pages.
• See WP:Verifiability and WP:BLP for more info on when to remove edits.
• In general all additions should be sourced, unless it's obvious, i.e. "the sky is blue"
• If someone adds unsourced or poorly sourced 'controversial' information to a persons biography (BLP) you should remove it immediately. They have to provide a source, not you. If it's borderline, then a {{citation needed}} 'tag' (or "thingy") may suffice.
• See Wikipedia Seigenthaler biography incident for how much trouble hoax pages cause. More 'senior'?, I suppose so, but rather more 'experienced'. Editing since Sept. 2009. 220 of ^Borg 11:13, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Reorganize article?

The article is listed chronologically. I'm fine with that. However, there are too many flag icons, so can we categorise events into countries or continents? --George Ho (talk) 19:55, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I certainly think it can do with reorganisation.

A tabular form would help tremendously, especially one which included death toll sums or at least a total death toll.

For pedagogic reasons, the itemised list certainly favours people hoping to foster views hostile to Islams. If, for example, an itemised list of every single Civilian death or attack by American military or American people were made, it would dwarf this Islamic terror list. I think it's safe to reiterate that, to be a serious information resource, Wikipedia must absolutely resist partisan or nationalist interests in conflicts One of the points of having an information resource is to give the lie to phobic rhetoric, not merely to reflect and feed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.103.60 (talk) 06:45, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

no. BEARtruth89 (talk) 23:03, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

BEARtruth89 has been 'sock-blocked'. 220 of ^Borg 06:07, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree with George Ho about the flagicons. 220 of ^Borg 06:07, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

San Barnardino

For inclusion, an attack needs to be both "terrorist" and Islamist.

• December 2, 2015 - In the 2015 San Bernardino shooting, two people, one of whom posted on Facebook an "oath of allegiance" to the leader of ISIS, shot and killed 14 people and injured 21 others in a killing spree that the FBI was investigating as "act of terrorism".

This does now seem to be a terrorist attack. Was it Islamist? We don't know, certainly not from the one reference included. "One of the attackers may have pledged loyalty to ISIL on Facebook under a different name", from one source, does not seem to be anything more than speculation. This attack should not be included, at least with just this reference. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:50, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Rather than breaching WP:3RR, TL565, could you engage here? News reports this morning are still quoting everyone from Obama down as saying the perpetrators "may have been" inspired by ISIL. I.e., speculation, still under investigation. An unnamed official claiming that one of the perpetrators posted to Facebook under a different name (apparently while simultaneously shooting people) is less than reliable. Give it time. Probably no more than a few days. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:08, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Reuters is reporting that ISIS has claimed credit for the attack. LA Times and AP have reported the woman had publicly sworn allegiance to ISIS leader. The workplace argument story has been denied and debunked. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:17, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

The NYT is calling it an act of Islamic terrorism. "The attack is the deadliest Islamic State-inspired attack on American soil. Al Qaeda and other groups have carried out — or inspired — lethal assaults in the United States, but the Islamic State, which has a base of operations in Syria and Iraq, and carried out the attack on Paris that killed 130 people last month, has turned into a leading terrorism threat with spreading influence around the world." Capitalismojo (talk) 15:22, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Grand, so - that'll be multiple reliable sources, then, when added to the article (please do so), so it should be retained. There weren't such sources included when I removed it. One reference that includes a report of an unnamed official claiming that one of the perpetrators had posted to Facebook under a different name, by itself, certainly wasn't a reliable source for "Islamist". Thanks, Capitalismojo. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:36, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

RfC regarding original research in this list

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Does the "Wikipedia community" believe that incidents included in this list should be required to have reliable sources that identify the incident as a terrorist attack and the perpetrators as Islamists, or is it acceptable for single-purpose accounts to continue to wave their hands and make noise about what "everybody knows"? (Examples available on request, or use Ctrl-F.) In short, will this list follow WP:Verifiability and WP:No original research or won't it? 2601:14C:0:F6E9:B4A6:ABC6:D6CA:F708 (talk) 02:21, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

• You should probably rephrase this in a yes/no format. All attacks should have RS that indicate they are both terrorism and Islamist to be included. —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:52, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
• The question for this RfC should be rewritten in a more neutral tone. (Please see Wikipedia:Writing requests for comment#Neutrality.)  Richard27182 (talk) 11:10, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
• I came here from the public RfC list. I agree that it is a leading question, and the RfC should be rephrased or abandoned. Zezen (talk) 08:34, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh, please note that the IP-hopper who asked it has been blocked. Zezen (talk) 08:36, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Summoned by bot. The originator of this RfC gets the Coretheapple Green Banana Award for Most Non-Neutral RfC During the 2015 Fiscal Year. Congratulations! You should be right proud. Seriously, either draft it to be neutral or close it. Coretheapple (talk) 00:11, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Aubervilliers attacked faked

BBC News: French teacher invented Aubervilliers school attack. I will remove this incident pending more clarification. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:16, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Ive read this too. Since then of course the incident does not belong on this list anymore.Joobo (talk) 21:25, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Apology accepted... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:46, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Article becoming too cumbersome, possibly misleading

While I don't agree with some requests above to remove this article altogether, I think it's clear to see that it is becoming quite a cumbersome list and terribly lengthy in its current format. And it will probably only get worse. It also gives a false impression that terrorist attacks have multiplied exponentially over the years. For example, there are a total of only eight incidents listed in the entire decade of the 1980s, but in 2015 alone there are well over 100. This seems very misleading. Plus, this gives the impression that the history of Islamist terrorist attacks began in 1980, which is entirely untrue. I have no idea how to improve this list, but I do feel it needs to be changed from its current format. What can be done to improve this list?Kerdooskis (talk) 22:12, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

What you say is true, but then you can edit the introduction text a bit so it gets clear. there is no other way around this. people who are really interested in these terrorist attack understand why the list looks this way it does. one cant help people who just hace a brief look on and then conclude its not wikipedias business to form peoples minds. one can simply help it by possibly edit the introductin a bit,Joobo (talk) 08:53, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Lists of attacks are being maintained for the major terrorist groups already, so this list could be turned into a list of lists. Some context - are attacks increasing? would be most helpful. Legacypac (talk) 02:02, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Achille Lauro hijacking

Achille Lauro hijacking '85 Abu Abbas, at that time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Longinus876 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Table with an automated sum/total function

Is it within the scope of WP to have a table, for example, of casualties of major earthquakes, etc., which table has a final line, for TOTAL casualties, that automatically sums the total number represented by the entire table? If no, does someone know why that would fall outside of WPs guidelines, and if yes, could that be done with this table? Bob Enyart, Denver KGOV radio host (talk) 04:15, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

There isn't a table in this article, just a list. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:53, 21 December 2015 (UTC)