Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Semi-protected edit request on 20 September 2016

Please add the following: France July 14, 2016 - 84 people were killed when an Islamic terrorist drove a truck through the crowds watching the French Bastille Day fireworks in Nice. 2601:602:9802:99B2:5804:D713:7C0C:D48D (talk) 07:27, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

• See the various discussions above and in the talk page archive.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:04, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Islamic terrorist attacks

@Fyunck(click): Malik Shabazz voted Delete:

Delete per nom and Carrite — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:22, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Your point being? twelve people voted delete, their opinions are just as valid as those that voted keep. The weight of the argument was strongly on the side of keep, that doesn't exclude those who voted delete from voicing their opinion ever again. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:01, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

2016 Nice attack

Guys, the 2016 Nice attack is one of the Islamist terrorism attack. --99.255.143.109 (talk) 00:44, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

See the above discussions. Overall, this debate looks to have stalled as investigators are still looking into whether Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel was a loon wolf who acted without input from a terrorist organization.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:17, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 October 2016

I just need to edit this page that the 2016 Nice attack is an Islamic terrorist attack. 2607:FEA8:A29F:FDEE:A55C:1C94:729A:BCD3 (talk) 22:36, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Please see the discussions higher up on this page and in Archive 7. Without consensus that it was an Islamist terrorist attack, it won't be added to the list. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:04, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done I actually agree with the IP. With the president of France's recent speech on the subject on 15 October, it's pretty much a done deal now that it was an Islamist attack. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:35, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

It isn't a done deal. Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel was undoubtedly a weirdo and the evidence of an Islamic motive is less than clear cut.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:20, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Not according to the president of France on Saturday. This seems cut and dry to them. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:30, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Francois Hollande said "It is the monstrous aim of the terrorists, to attack some in order to terrify others, to unleash violence in order to sow division ... well, I tell you, no, this evil enterprise will fail." This is perfectly true of groups like ISIL, but investigators have not produced any clear evidence to show that the Nice attack was directed or funded by a terrorist organization. Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel may have dreamed up the whole thing himself after being influenced by the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting. This type of attack causes problems when it comes to describing it as terrorism, because a mentally unstable person with no well defined links to extremist organizations is not really a terrorist, or at best a wannabe terrorist. As for ISIL's claim of responsibility, this has been rejected as meaningless because they do this sort of thing all the time.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:44, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Islamist terrorist attack on Christmas market in Berlin

A guy has deleted what I wrote. We know that ISIS claims to stand behind the terrorist attack. We know that the culprit looked like someone from the Middle East. So I think we should put it back in again. Here is what I wrote:

• Germany December 19, 2016 – 2016 Berlin attack, 12 people were killed and 49 injured after a Scania R 450 semi-trailer lorry drove through Christmas market on the Breitscheidplatz in Berlin. The culprit is unknown.

Kind regards --Élisée P. Bruneau (talk) 00:38, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

References

You're making this same bad edit on multiple articles and on Wiki News. ISIS claiming that they are behind the attack does not establish that as a fact. Sources have not attributed the attack to ISIS. We need to wait until they do before adding it to this list, or making such a claim on Wikipedia or Wiki News.- MrX 00:47, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I assure you, that on this page, you don't stand a snowballs chance in hell of getting this into the article without profound evidence to support inclusion. Is he a practicing Muslim? evidence required. Does he have traceable ties to an Islamist group? significant evidence required. Was this attack co-ordinated by an Islamist group? evidence required. If you can't answer all three of those question with solid multi-RS backed evidence, then you're going to be waiting until you can. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:51, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

You mean, "We know that the culprit looked like someone from the Middle East." is not enough? Carptrash (talk) 01:12, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

As you wrote, the culprit is unknown. Please note that our article, 2016 Berlin attack, is in the category Category:Terrorist incidents involving vehicular attacks but not in any category related to the suspected motive of the perpetrator (such as Category:Islamic terrorist incidents in 2016). Why the obscene rush to add the attack to this list before the police have actually arrested a suspect and announced a motive? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:44, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Carptrash, its borderline, Im leaning towards delete but only cause we have sourcing and verifiability standards. :) Mr rnddude (talk) 09:00, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm the one that made the revert. Mr rnddude makes a makes a point that is half true. Sometimes on this article those that patrol it make the sourcing way to narrow to add things. In previous incidents we've had the president of France saying it was Islamist terrorism and that should be good enough. This one however we know pretty much nothing. No one in custody, no background,... zip. People in authority are saying it looks like, and it fits the profile of an Islamist terrorist, but they aren't saying it is an Islamist terrorist. We have to wait on this one. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:40, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Did you notice that Nice still isnt in this article per the consensus above from a few weeks ago. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:00, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

1968 Los Angeles, California Sirhan B Sirhan Assassinates Robert Fitzgerald Kennedy

I understand that this is before the timeframe but...Sirhan was born in Jerusalem in Mandatory Palestine and is a strong opponent of Israel. In 1989, he told David Frost, "My only connection with Robert Kennedy was his sole support of Israel and his deliberate attempt to send those 50 bombers to Israel to obviously do harm to the Palestinians."[2] Some scholars believe that the assassination was the first major incident of political violence in the United States stemming from the Arab–Israeli conflict in the Middle East.[3] -Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bolo72 (talk • contribs) 03:54, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Bolo72, and welcome to Wikipedia. While the assassination may have had a connection to Palestinian nationalism, to add it to this list (of Islamist terrorist attacks) you would need to cite a reliable source that specifically called the assassination an Islamist terrorist attack. I'm hardly an expert in the Kennedy assassination, but I don't think you're likely to find such a source that satisfies the criteria to be a reliable source. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:05, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Sirhan Sirhan was clear about his motive and it isn't disputed, but he wasn't an Islamist in the modern sense of wanting to impose his religious views on everyone else in a jihad. The assassination of Robert Kennedy was linked to nationalist extremism rather than religious extremism.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:27, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

RFC on addition of 2016 Nice, France terrorist attack

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Too soon per WP:CRYSTAL, among other things. As noted in the discussion, the investigation is ongoing, and so even if media sources and even the President of France are alleging that it's an Islamist terrorist attack, that still only makes it an alleged Islamist terrorist attack. And since this page is a list of Islamist terrorist attacks and not alleged Islamist terrorist attacks, it is too soon to add this, per WP:CRYSTAL. And just like anything concerning wp:crystal, even if it isn't now, wait and it yet may be. And once that's determined by the investigation, then the question in this discussion concerning "unhinged" may likely be resolved as well. - jc37 02:03, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

---

In light of the President of France's recent speech on 15 October (examples at the Daily Mail and Gulf Times) it seemed to me, @TTCTransportationFan4644:, and a few others that it was time to add the 2016 Nice attack to our list. Since two have disagreed, and there have been a couple reverts, I thought it best to discuss here to iron things out. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

• See my comments above. Francois Hollande's October 2016 speech doesn't add much to what is known already, and the investigation is ongoing. There is no clear cut evidence that the Nice attack was directed or funded by a terrorist organization. As someone else memorably put it, if a mentally unstable person claimed to be from Mars, would the attack be added to List of Martian attacks?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:07, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

  Well he's got the president of France convinced now. Plus the October 15 AFP and Octber 15 Gulf Times quoted as "President Francois Hollande invoked the spirit of national unity yesterday as he led tribute to 86 people killed in a Islamist militant truck attack in Nice on Bastille Day." Not to mention the Daily Mail headline of Oct 15 "Ceremony to remember those killed by lorry driving Islamic extremists in Nice, France, on Bastille Day." The gov't of France may know more than we do, and the recent sources are out there. I'm not sure what more you want at this time. But that's why we are here discussing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:20, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Add it to the list I think the more precise analogy would be if a mentally unstable person who actually was from Mars but paid for the trip themselves made an attack, would the attack be listed? The answer is yes. The article says the list compiles events "by Islamist extremists to further a perceived Islamic religious or political cause". Despite being crazy (perhaps) this perpetrator seems to fit the bill. Further splitting of hairs is either an exercise in semantics or an exercise in politics. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:22, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
• Support inclusion - If being "directed or funded by a terrorist organization" is a requirement for inclusion then other lone-wolf attacks like the 2009 Fort Hood shooting, the 2014 shootings at Parliament Hill, Ottawa, the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting and dozens of other attacks already in the article must also be removed. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 17:44, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose A politician's speech is merely a reliable source for her/his opinion, not facts. More importantly, if 2016 Nice attack, Wikipedia's article about the incident, doesn't attribute it to Islamists, and that article isn't categorized under Islamist terrorism, why should the incident be listed here? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:20, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
• Support inclusion for the reasons listed by Millionsandbillions. Et0048 (talk) 20:01, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

There isn't much in the way of evidence that Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel was a religious fanatic, but plenty of evidence that he was mentally unstable. Anyway, it is up to investigators and apart from using terrorism laws to investigate the case, they have not assigned a specific motive as yet.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:27, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - Daily Mail is a tabloid, and therefore an unreliable source. Not sure about the Gulf Times, though... Parsley Man (talk) 05:50, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
• Neutral - Balance all the sources out, take 'em all together and then look at them as a whole. I've looked at the Telegraph, Daily Telegraph, BBC, CNN, Independent, and a few others. What I can say definitely are these things; it was an attack, it claimed the lives of more than eighty people with hundreds injured, the investigation currently underway is inquiring into the possibility of terrorism, accomplices have been charged for terrorism, ISIS has claimed the attack for themselves, and the attacker appears to have been radicalized. What I cannot say (but what does appear likely); is that the attacker was politically (or religiously) motivated. Why is this important? because a terrorist incident is different from mass murder in this lone aspect - at least that I am aware of. The attack must have been politically (or religiously) motivated for this to be terrorism, if it is terrorism, then that motive must be to further an Islamist cause for it to be Islamic terrorism. Now, the only possible political motive that has been identified is to further the cause of ISIS, so if this attack is terrorism then it is almost certainly Islamic terrorism. All in all, I expect the investigation to be concluded and the verdict handed down before I support the inclusion of this attack in the article. Yet, cannot oppose its inclusion as the evidence we currently have is weighted towards Islamic terrorism. As much as I dislike the BBC, their approach seems the best here[1]. The President of France has called it undeniable that the attack was Islamic terrorism, and the investigators note that the attack bears the hallmarks of Islamic terrorism. Make of that what you will, to me it says; We think (in the case of the investigation) it's Islamic terrorism, it resembles other recent Islamic terrorist incidents, but, we cannot yet confirm that it is. Hence, I too cannot confirm that it is with any certainty (so cannot support inclusion), but, agree that it most likely is (so cannot oppose inclusion). Mr rnddude (talk) 06:37, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose for now, the article can represent the nuances of the 'terrorist' element, which at present point to a 'loon-wolf', without any contact with any known organisation. A list does not have that facility of nuance. Discussions have taken place elsewhere, but we don't seem any closer to a clear threshold for what is/is not terroriam. I err on the side of caution on this. Pincrete (talk) 19:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
• Of course it should be. I can't believe this is still being discussed. Terrorism does not need to be carried out by organisations for it to be termed terrorism. 18 U.S.C. § 2331 defines terrorism as acts which fulfill the following characteristics: "involve violent acts"; "intended to intimidate"; and "transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished". Regardless of the perpetrator being deranged or any other PC crap being thrown at this, this act was clearly fueled by religious/ideological extremism and psychosis and was meant to intimidate the French populace, being accomplished by the perp's obvious fervent following of IS modus operandi. Denying this is folly. If you don't want your narrative being polluted by truth, ignoring thousands of reliable sources out there, it's best you don't edit Wikipedia. At worst list the Nice attack here and add a footnote stating some absurd sourcing substantitates the non-terrorist hoax, giving it due weight. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 21:11, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support inclusion According to the BBC, while having lived "far from religion" (eating pork, taking drugs, etc.) he had a "clear and recent interest" in radical Islamist movements, Mr Molins [French prosecutor] said. From 1 July, Lahouaiej-Bouhlel made more or less daily internet searches for verses of the Koran and "nasheeds" - jihadist propaganda chants. He also researched the Islamic holiday of Eid al-Fitr. Investigators found photos of dead bodies and images linked to radical Islamism on his computer, including the flag of so-called Islamic State, the cover of an issue of French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo - attacked by gunmen in January 2015 - and photos of Osama bin Laden and Algerian jihadist Mokhtar Belmokhtar. In the eight days leading up to the attack, he grew a beard and told friends this was for "religious reasons". He also told them he did not understand why IS could not hold territory and showed them a video of a beheading on his mobile phone. In response to their shock, he said he was "used to it". "Attack on Nice: Who was Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel?". BBC. British Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved 16 November 2016.

Thus while being mentally unstable and prone to violence by nature, he evidenced a degree of of conversion prior to the attack and was quite obviously inspired by Islamic extremists, ISIS in particular. RE the analogy of a list of Martian attacks, if a man indicated conversion to a Martian religion (like wearing antennas) and exhibited a sudden interest in Martian invasions and violence against earthlings (War of the worlds, etc.) and searching the Martian "bible" and war cries, and subsequently carried out a bloody attack with his space ship in accordance with Martian exhortations, yes, it probably would be added to the List of Martian Attacks! Grace and peace thru the Lord Jesus (talk)

If it is quite obvious, it should be easy for investigators to say this in due course. At the moment, they have said very little about the motive and are still investigating. He probably did look at radical Islamic material online, just as Omar Mateen did. However, "loon wolf" attacks are largely the result of a person's mental instability with some attempt at a political or religious cause thrown into the mix.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:47, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

That is so much special pleading. Lone wolf does not exclude such from being an Islamist terrorist attack, nor does mixed motives (whose motive is always pure) and the criteria in this article for Islamist terrorist attack is to 'further a perceived Islamic religious or political cause," while the mental health of most any suicide bomber is questionable, but the fact is that he not only manifested a change in appearance for religious reasons, but began searching for Quranic texts and jihadist propaganda chants and following the actions of ISIS which carried out their terrorist attack for religious reasons, and thus was used to seeing beheading, and then carried out a premeditated and deliberate act of terror such as ISIS exhorted. And later claimed was done by one of its own. Yet somehow this is not an Islamist terrorist attack! Of course, Western officials are very fearful of saying anything was, and the criteria for inclusion under Christian terrorism is obviously not dependent upon whether investigators specifically say it is.Grace and peace thru the Lord Jesus (talk) 17:55, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - I really find it strange how some seem to think that so-called "loon-wolf" attacks should not be included in this article when previous attacks have already been included in this article that have been committed by mentally unstable perpetrators. Previous "loon-wolf" attacks already listed include:
  • The 2014 Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu ramming attack where the article quotes someone as saying, "I don’t think it’s a terrorist act. He needed help. We could see that he needed psychiatric help."
  • The 2014 shootings at Parliament Hill, Ottawa that states "In his mother's opinion, the attack was the "last desperate act" of someone with a mental disorder who felt trapped." and "A national poll by the Angus Reid organization released on November 25, 2014 revealed that Canadians in general were also split as well on whether the attack and shooting was an act of terrorism or mental illness."
  • The 2014 Sydney hostage crisis which states "Queensland University of Technology criminologist Mark Lauchs said it was important to not describe the siege as a "terrorist attack". Lauchs said Monis was simply a deranged person running a hostage situation." and quotes Richard Clarke as saying " "I don't think this was a lone wolf terrorist, I don't think this was a terrorist at all, I think this was someone who was committing suicide by police as a lot of people with mental problems do, ...."

Therefore, seeing as previous "loon-wolf" attacks are already included, precedent would seem to be to include the attack in Nice, especially as it is a being investigated as a terror attack and there have been arrests. The alternative to inclusion would be for someone to do an audit of this article and remove entries that already fall under the "loon wolf" definition. Note that I would not be opposed to this but as the list is written now the Nice attack should be included. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 21:11, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, the Christian terrorism page states that Michael Barkun, a professor at Syracuse University, considers Eric Robert Rudolph to likely fit the definition of a Christian terrorist (though he wrote that he really prefers Nietzsche to the Bible) but a "top terrorism expert," Philip Mudd, even said that the Boston Marathon bombers are “murderers not terrorists,” while Defense Department has not even classified the 2009 Fort Hood shooting as terrorism, but merely as "work place violence." Then again, bombing of cities can be called an Air Campaign, and torture, Enhanced interrogation... Grace and peace thru the Lord Jesus (talk) 23:05, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

After looking at that Christian terrorism article, I noticed that Robert Lewis Dear, perpetrator of the Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood shooting is included in the article despite actually being found mentally incompetent to stand trial. So not only are so-called "loon-wolf" attacks already included on this page but in other terrorism-related articles as well. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 18:08, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

But his name was not Islamic.Grace and peace thru the Lord Jesus (talk) 11:08, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

References

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.

Proposed Entry : OSU Terror Attack 11/28/16

Tracking this info as a best source for this article, the attacked posted on Facebook that he is a follower of Awlaki and obsessed with LoneWolf Style Attacks. Also this attack follows the MO described in a online terrorism video released only days earlier by jihadists.

Best reference source : ABC 13 News - "He reportedly discussed attacks on Muslims on social media Sources tells ABC News that authorities are looking at a Facebook posting online to determine if it is connected to the OSU suspect. The posting mentions radical cleric Anwar Awlaki and says, among other things: "I am sick and tired of seeing my fellow Muslim brothers and sisters being killed and tortured EVERYWHERE. ... I can't take it anymore. America! Stop interfering with other countries ... [if] you want us Muslims to stop carrying lone wolf attacks." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coriantumr15 (talk • contribs) 23:10, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't see the words "Islamist" or "terrorist attack" in that source and currently, our article about the attack, 2016 Ohio State University attack, doesn't mention them either. Until you can cite reliable sources that call the attack an Islamist terrorist attack, adding it to this list would be original research. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:56, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Malik and oppose inclusion for now. Officials are explicitly refraining from calling it terrorism at this time per CNN. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:53, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

It is the same problem of "loon wolf" attacks. It's unlikely that this guy had anything to do with terrorist organizations, although he may have read some radical Islamic material online and joined the wannabe terrorist club.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:22, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

CNN is reporting that it is likely terror according to sources. http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/29/us/ohio-state-university-attack/index.html "Authorities believe Abdul Razak Ali Artan, who attacked pedestrians Monday at the Ohio State University, was inspired by terrorist propaganda from ISIS and deceased Yemeni-American cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, two law enforcement sources said. " 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 21:29, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Include - it walks and talks like a duck and media and law enforcement are calling it a duck now. Legacypac (talk) 21:55, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

It's included already. The investigates are calling it ISIL inspired now. source EvergreenFir (talk) 21:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Now that reliable sources are describing the attack as an Islamist terrorist attack (although they quote only unnamed investigators), I agree that the OSU attack should be included in the list. Thank you, Sir Joseph, for bringing that source and restoring the attack to the list, and EvergreenFir, for adding the source to the article. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:06, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Segregation

This article is long and very difficult to follow. I propose breaking the article based on organizations. Putting IJO and ISIS in the same list isn't very informative if you ask me. The two organizations seek different goals, have different beliefs, leaderships, eras etc. They have very little relationship and even that could be plainly original research on our part. This is like comparing attacks by Maquis and the IRA in a single list as both are inspired by naitonalism. Something like "List of attacks by Islamic Jihad Organization" is more informative. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 22:42, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not a mind-reader, so I can't tell you why this list was created although I have my suspicions. Wikipedia already has a List of terrorist incidents linked to ISIL; there's no reason there couldn't be one for every major terrorist organization. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:39, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Islamist terrorist attack on Christmas market in Berlin

A guy has deleted what I wrote. We know that ISIS claims to stand behind the terrorist attack. We know that the culprit looked like someone from the Middle East. So I think we should put it back in again. Here is what I wrote:

• Germany December 19, 2016 – 2016 Berlin attack, 12 people were killed and 49 injured after a Scania R 450 semi-trailer lorry drove through Christmas market on the Breitscheidplatz in Berlin. The culprit is unknown.

Kind regards --Élisée P. Bruneau (talk) 00:38, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

References

You're making this same bad edit on multiple articles and on Wiki News. ISIS claiming that they are behind the attack does not establish that as a fact. Sources have not attributed the attack to ISIS. We need to wait until they do before adding it to this list, or making such a claim on Wikipedia or Wiki News.- MrX 00:47, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I assure you, that on this page, you don't stand a snowballs chance in hell of getting this into the article without profound evidence to support inclusion. Is he a practicing Muslim? evidence required. Does he have traceable ties to an Islamist group? significant evidence required. Was this attack co-ordinated by an Islamist group? evidence required. If you can't answer all three of those question with solid multi-RS backed evidence, then you're going to be waiting until you can. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:51, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

You mean, "We know that the culprit looked like someone from the Middle East." is not enough? Carptrash (talk) 01:12, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

As you wrote, the culprit is unknown. Please note that our article, 2016 Berlin attack, is in the category Category:Terrorist incidents involving vehicular attacks but not in any category related to the suspected motive of the perpetrator (such as Category:Islamic terrorist incidents in 2016). Why the obscene rush to add the attack to this list before the police have actually arrested a suspect and announced a motive? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:44, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Carptrash, its borderline, Im leaning towards delete but only cause we have sourcing and verifiability standards. :) Mr rnddude (talk) 09:00, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm the one that made the revert. Mr rnddude makes a makes a point that is half true. Sometimes on this article those that patrol it make the sourcing way to narrow to add things. In previous incidents we've had the president of France saying it was Islamist terrorism and that should be good enough. This one however we know pretty much nothing. No one in custody, no background,... zip. People in authority are saying it looks like, and it fits the profile of an Islamist terrorist, but they aren't saying it is an Islamist terrorist. We have to wait on this one. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:40, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Did you notice that Nice still isnt in this article per the consensus above from a few weeks ago. Even the President isnt considered official enough. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:00, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

As I said, many are way too exclusive for me with their opinions on the Nice attack. I see a French judge has just charged three more men suspected of helping to arm the Islamist radical who crushed those 86 people with his truck. But this one we don't even have a suspect yet, so we must wait. Fyunck(click) (talk) 11:22, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh no, I definitely agree with you there. My point was with regards to that exact exclusion. I was being intentionally over the top with my original post, but, it's not that far off in some cases here. Nice was a specific example I was drawing on, Orlando with the RfC would be another. In both cases I was neutral to the question, I just provide my sources make my case and go, well, ya'll can figure that there issue out ye'selves. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:28, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

So what you're saying is "I don't know why my edit that added 'The culprit is unknown' to a 'list of Islamist attacks' was removed." Think about why that might be, for a minute... Hint: "the [unknown!] culprit looked like someone from the Middle East." would appear to not satisfy any sort of WP criteria at all... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:02, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

My 2 cents: unlike Nice, the German police have said clearly that this was a deliberate terrorist-style attack. When it comes to calling it an Islamist attack, there is a need to wait for the authorities to say this rather than playing a join the dots game on the basis of limited information.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:42, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

He pledge allegiance to Isis in a video, is this enough yet? https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/new-terror-attack-thwarted-say-german-police/2016/12/23/7ea61604-c8e7-11e6-85b5-76616a33048d_story.html Pc Retro (talk) 22:58, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Bombing 1992 Yemen

The Goldmore hotel, Dec 29, 1992 in Aden, Yemen, bombing is missing from the list. Morjenann (talk) 00:30, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

That would be the Gold Mohur Hotel, not the Goldmore Hotel, but yes, it's missing. I'll add it momentarily. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

St. Cloud, Minnesota, September 18, 2016 Mall Knife Attack

It seems to me that this incident should be added to this list, but I'm not sure if it meets the defined criteria, or exactly how to insert it into the article.

Link: http://www.startribune.com/st-cloud-mall-closed-until-monday-is-crime-scene-after-stabbings/393872071/

Can any of you more experienced editors help me? Thanks, Arryp (talk) 05:15, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

The source describes it as a "potential act of terrorism". The 2016 Minnesota mall stabbing is probably another example of a disgruntled person deciding to jump on the radical Islamic bandwagon; the claim of responsibility by ISIL is routine, although they have urged people to do things like this. It isn't suitable for the article unless a clear link is made by investigators.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:48, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Formatting

Why is the list for 2015 and 2016 not in a table and why have the flags of the countries gone?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.131.206.129 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Not sure why 2016 isn't in a table, maybe nobody has got round to doing it because it can be fiddly to create tables in HTML. As for the flag icons, the article is better off without them per MOS:FLAGICON. If you look at this old revision of the article with the flags, they aren't really adding anything and are a bit of an eyesore.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:27, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2017

Please include this event on the list of terror attacks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Atat%C3%BCrk_Airport_attack 174.102.252.3 (talk) 20:39, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Done DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 05:47, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Terrorists country of origin

I think the table should include information about the terrorists country (countries) of origin. Maybe to add another column? It will require some work, but it's important. Semimartingale (talk) 14:46, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

It's an interesting idea but it may be easier said than done for some of the attacks. Tables should stick to simple and uncontroversial information as far as possible. Many of the attacks have wikilinked articles which go into much more detail and can cover this information clearly in prose.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:19, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

add those please

sept 2016, Bombing in NY (usa) : 29 wounded http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/19/explosion-in-new-york-29-injured-in-pressure-cooker-bomb-attack/

june 2016, bombing at Istanbul airport (turkey) : 42 killed http://www.reuters.com/article/us-turkey-blast-idUSKCN0ZE2J1

nov 2016, bombing in Baluchistan (Pakistan) : 52 killed http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/12/deadly-bomb-kills-dozens-at-muslim-shrine-in-southwestern-pakistan.html

dec 2016, bombing in a copt church in Cairo (Egypt) : 25 christians killed https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/13/islamic-state-cairo-church-bombing

14th july 2016, Nice (France) 86 deads 458 wounded http://france3-regions.francetvinfo.fr/provence-alpes-cote-d-azur/attentat-nice-six-mois-apres-trois-personnes-toujours-hospitalisees-1173181.html

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.204.76.253 (talk) 15:08, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Please provide reliable sources that describe the 2016 New York and New Jersey bombings as a "terrorist attack".

The 2016 Atatürk Airport attack was already listed (see June 28, 2016).

I have added the 2016 Khuzdar bombing to the list.

I have added the Botroseya Church bombing to the list.

There have been several discussions concerning the 2016 Nice attack. There is no consensus regarding its inclusion, in large part because of the lack of reliable sources describing it as an Islamist attack. You can review the past discussions—but please don't edit them—by using the search box at the top of this page. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:05, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

there is no doubt it was an islamist attack... the guy is muslim tunisian, he employed the method described by Isis (use a truck, go ahead and kill people), shouted "allah akbar" and Isis recognized him as one of them. You say "there is as yet no evidence that he or the suspected accomplices had any direct contact with the terrorist network", but there is no need of such links befrore the attack... everyone knows Isis and what they do, how they do and what they want. The terrorist never denied what Isis claimed.

you can add too : 18th sept 2016 9 wuounded in Minneapolis (USA) http://edition.cnn.com/2016/09/18/us/minnesota-mall-stabbing/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.204.76.253 (talk) 00:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

There may be no doubt in your mind that the Nice attack was motivated by Islamism, but many of the rest of us still require reliable sources when editing Wikipedia.

As far as the 2016 Minnesota mall stabbing—which was not classified by authorities as a terrorist attack, but was investigated as a "potential" act of terrorism—no, not without reliable sources that describe it as a terrorist attack committed by an Islamist. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:42, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

you are ridiculous, stupid, crazy... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.204.76.253 (talk) 12:48, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

there are no mention of hundreds of killing in Israel... this is very strange — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.204.76.253 (talk) 12:52, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Edit request

Please change [[2002 Jaffa Street bombing|Jaffa Street bombing]] to [[Jaffa Street bombing]] per recent page move. Thanks. 81.141.43.132 (talk) 01:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Done. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:32, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! 81.141.43.132 (talk) 08:21, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Edit request

Citation used in Black Standard covers the claim of the flag being used since the 1990's and can be used to replace the citation needed mark.

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Wordpress is not a reliable source EvergreenFir (talk) 05:40, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't know why it was used in the other article then. Looks like the WordPress page references a non-English book. However, there's a book which states that "the messianic signification of the black flag has been fostered in jihadi propaganda since the 1980s." Would that work as a source? 50.186.27.41 (talk) 06:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

References

Westminster attack

2017 Westminster attack should be added MeropeRiddle http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-london-attack-islamic-terrorism-wrong-westminster-bridge-prime-minister-commons-a7645626.html Theresa May says: "It is not 'Islamic terrorism', it is 'Islamist terrorism', a perversion of a great faith" (talk) 02:03, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

The 2017 Westminster attack is the work of another radicalized loser who thinks that Allah will be so proud that he has killed civilians. Theresa May's comments are in line with the BBC's wording of incidents like this. The BBC's journalists always refer to "so-called Islamic State" following criticism from the government in 2015.[2] The IS claim of responsibility for the Westminster attack is routine and predictable. It has urged people to carry out attacks like this, and it is similar to the 2016 Minnesota mall stabbing. While investigators have not said publicly that the Westminster attack was Islamist terrorism (as far as I can see), it clearly fits the pattern of this type of attack and all of the lines of inquiry are based on this hypothesis.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:09, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

A statement by a politician is worthless. What have investigators said? — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 14:17, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Normally I'm very cautious about this sort of thing (see my comments about the 2016 Nice attack), but I'm also wary of denying the large amount of evidence which has emerged in the last few days that Khalid Masood was an Islamist extremist and saying that this was due to mental health problems when it almost certainly wasn't. If we waited until a full investigation was complete it could take months.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:08, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Admittedly I'm not following this story closely, but the Wikipedia article about the attack and the sources that have been cited in adding the attack to this list are insufficient, in my opinion, to draw any conclusion. The sources cited here have included articles about what Prime Minister May had to say and an article that said ISIL had claimed responsibility but authorities doubted their involvement. If there are any sources that quote people close to the investigation describing the attack as Islamist, somebody should cite one. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:51, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

The British police are working on the assumption that this was a terrorist attack.[3] It's too early to give a detailed motive, but plenty has emerged in the media that Masood had gone down the well worn path of radicalization. Many people have mental health problems but do not do things like this. If they did, they would not be able to plead insanity under the M'Naghten rules. One of the things of key importance is that Masood used WhatsApp two minutes before the attack.[4] Investigators will want to know what was said here, as it may point towards others being involved.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:01, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

• Police are now saying that Masood acted alone, with the comment "We must all accept that there is a possibility we will never understand why he did this... Nevertheless, we are determined to understand if Masood was a lone actor inspired by terrorist propaganda or if others have encouraged, supported or directed him." [5] This is always a problem when the attacker dies and cannot be questioned. It fits the pattern of attacks by troubled loners, and Theresa May said that he had been investigated by MI5 for suspected links to violent extremism, but was considered "a peripheral figure".[6] Overall, this makes it difficult to say in a clear cut way what the motive was, and it may have been the act of another wannabe who wanted to go out with a bang. On the basis of the current sourcing, it is difficult to say that this was Islamist terrorism, because the evidence is inconclusive and the authorities have not said this directly.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:49, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Islamic terrorism or radical Islamic terrorism, is defined as any terrorist act, set of acts or campaign committed by groups or individuals who profess Islamic or Islamist motivations or goals.

This article says, "Terror attacks by Islamist extremists to further a perceived Islamic religious or political cause have occurred globally. The attackers have used such tactics as arson, vehicle rampage attacks, bomb threats, suicide attacks, bombings, spree shooting, stabbings, hijackings, kidnappings and beheadings. The following is a list of Islamist terrorist attacks that have received significant press coverage since 1979." It seems to be Islamic State-inspired, using of a vehicle and knives. Regardless of him being mentally ill or a drug addict, It seems like there is enough documented coverage for this attack to be referenced as Islamic Terrorism. If it isn't politically correct to add, maybe this list shouldn't exist.MeropeRiddle (talk) 00:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

In accordance with Wikipedia's policies concerning verifiability and original research, an Islamist terrorist attack is an incident that reliable sources describe as an "Islamist terrorist attack". (About a year ago, after much discussion, we agreed that if reliable sources describe an incident as a terrorist attack and attribute it to a known Islamist organization, such as al-Qaeda or ISIL, the sources need not also use the word "Islamist".) If it requires interpretation on an editor's part to conclude that an incident is an Islamist terrorist attack—and most frequently, when something is "the textbook definition of an Islamist terrorist attack"—it almost always means the editor is engaging in impermissible original research. So please cite your sources. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:17, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

OK I get it now, I see that there is a completely different list that is more appropriate for the situation, there is a terrorist attack list for ALL terrorist attacks NOT specifically proven to be state sponsored incidents. If somebody were to have mental illness, and is a religious extremist, and commits an act of terror, but it isn't state sponsored/proven to be in contact with a specific organization, it would go under a different list that has a variety of attacks that haven't been proven to state sponsored, it doesn't belong here, it is simply a terrorist attack. I edited the top of this article to refer to that list, because I think a lot of people have been confused. I entered the info not realizing that two other people had done the same thing before me. I also think if an edit isn't appropriate and needs to be removed, it would be a good idea to refer people to that other list. It also might help to clean the top of the article up a bit. There is that notice about external links that could be removed? It also might help to edit the Page Notice to specifically say that the incident must be proven as a state sponsored incident and not a suspected incident. Perhaps that other list could be noted on the Page Notice as well?MeropeRiddle (talk) 17:22, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I am wary of setting off another controversy along the lines of "Wikipedia said this wasn't Islamist terrorism", but our hands are tied by the sourcing. Investigators have not said publicly that this was Islamist terrorism, and the investigation is ongoing. Masood had been investigated for links to extremism, but was not considered to be a major threat. There is a good CNN profile of him here. If he decided to do all of this on his own, which seems likely, his motive died with him.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:43, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I think the article would benefit from a small amount of clarification and maybe a small bit of clarification on the Page Notice. There is a completely different article that is better suited for the Westminster Attack, List_of_terrorist_incidents. This article is a list for actual known/proven collaboration between individuals and an organization/state, whereas the other list are all terrorist incidents/attacks NOT proven to be associated with a sponsored state.MeropeRiddle (talk) 17:29, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't understand what you mean. This has nothing to do with states, it has to do with Islamism. How can we make it clearer? The list is titled "List of Islamist terrorist attacks", and every time somebody edits the page they see the following notice above the edit box:

What else should we do, add flashing lights? — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:31, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

See what I wrote below this for more clarification. My point was that it is easy for people to come here and add an incident suspected to be associated with ISIS/ISIL/Al-QAeda, which is evident because ...it just happened three times. There should be some indicator to people that a different list exists, and that this page is not for suspected incidents/lonewolf. And that if the lead was cleaned up, it would be easy for people to see the suggestion to the other list, and that this list is specifically for proven collaboration. Also the page notice says:

"This list is subject to the Verifiability policy and the reliable sources guideline. Please familiarize yourself with both before editing this list. In addition, note that a reliable source that states the attack is both terrorist and Islamist must be provided for any new entry. Unreferenced list items may be removed at any time." 

It is still really easy to find sources that reference him as a jihadist terrorist and more conservative sources that refer to it as an Islamic attack, but it would be helpful it there was more of a specific mention in regards to it being verifiable/proven that collaboration existed between the perpetrator and a state/organization as opposed to an inspired lonewolf/suspected collaboration. Again, my point being, that there obviously is some confusion, as three people/me included just made the same mistake.MeropeRiddle (talk) 19:07, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Cleaning up the lead

Currently it says, "Terror attacks by Islamist extremists to further a perceived Islamic religious or political cause have occurred globally. The attackers have used such tactics as arson, vehicle rampage attacks, bomb threats, suicide attacks, bombings, spree shooting, stabbings, hijackings, kidnappings and beheadings. The following is a list of Islamist terrorist attacks that have received significant press coverage since 1979."

I think it would benefit from a very small amount of clarification. "An Islamist terrorist attack is attack that has proven collaboration between perpetator(s) and a sponsored state or organization to further a perceived Islamic religious or political cause. These attacks have occurred globally and have involved tactics such as arson, vehicle rampage attacks, bomb threats, suicide attacks, bombings, spree shooting, stabbings, hijackings, kidnappings and beheadings. The following is a list of proven Islamist terrorist attacks that have received significant press coverage since 1979."

I think something like what I wrote above would prevent people from adding incidents where there is some speculation, but zero actual proven collaboration.

That would mean a single individual could never ever commit an islamist terrorist attack - as long as there is no proof (by court I guess) of an active colaboration with other islamists. That does not apply to most of the current entries - not to speak of the missing 2016 Nice attack and the 2017 Westminster attack. Alexpl (talk) 09:39, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

please add recent attacks

1. April 2017 Sweden lorry attack, see http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/07/truck-crashes-crowd-people-stockholm/

2. The recent attack in London (Westminster) also belongs here, surely.

People will continue "self-radicalizing" every month committing this violence around the world, due to what the Quran literally says and interpretation to that effect promoted online as well as content by ISIS et al. If you are intent on excluding these events, which are happening every month if not every week around the world, you will only be presenting part of the reality of "Islamist terrorist attacks". Moreover, you should change the title of the webpage to "Materially Organized Islamist terrorist attacks" in that case -- though 'Mohammedan' is the better word here. I understand you prefer the word 'Islamist' to respect what they believe, but 'Mohammedan' is the objective term to use, since it just means 'of Mohammed' (like 'Roman', 'American', 'Judean', 'Palestinian', etc means 'of' those things) and does not make any reference to 'submission' or obedience, which is a subjective or political claim.) -- Newagelink (talk) 05:49, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Too early to say on the Stockholm attack. Likewise, British investigators have stopped short of giving a clear motive for the Westminster attack, as discussed above.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:54, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Editing Conflict

It is obvious that after each attack perpetrated by a Muslim, a huge debate occurs here whether to include the incident or not, under the definition of "Islamist", I wonder if any of the bragging users have read the "Arabic" version of Quran to know the difference between an ignorant Muslim and a Muslim who just follows the teachings literally ! Anyway, many important incidents such as 2016 Nice attack, Botroseya Church bombing, 2017 Westminster attack, 2017 Stockholm attack and 2017 St. Petersburg attack are not included !

Thus, I recommended to add a section called Islam-related attacks, but some users argue that adding that section would "rewrite the rules of the article" ! It is clear that certain editors only argue to exclude events claiming that an attack done by a Muslim to kill random people might not be related to his religion !!! I do not want to enter in an editing conflict or to argue with those editors who claim "good faith reverts". Therefore, I would like to ask for adding the recommended section to evade further SUBJECTIVE approach of the incidents ! LeoHsn (talk) 05:55, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

There are various reasons why some of these edits were reverted. Rushing in soon after an attack when investigators have not given a motive yet is one of them. In some cases there is a lone wolf element, which makes a simple motive difficult. In order to avoid this type of ongoing debate, the article policy is to wait until investigators say that they believe that the incident had an Islamist motive.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:12, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

WP:HOLDYOURHORSES #shamelessplug EvergreenFir (talk) 06:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2017

I would like to request the general update of the article. More specificly the inclusion of the terror attack in Stockholm this april year 2017. 212.181.114.61 (talk) 10:03, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

The problem with the 2017 Stockholm attack is one of ongoing police investigation. Rakhmat Akilov is "suspected on probable cause of terrorist crimes through murder". This is legal jargon which stops short of saying that investigators have assigned a motive at the current time. It is another example of a vehicle-ramming attack which can be conducted without direction from a terrorist organization. Like Khalid Masood in the 2017 Westminster attack, Akilov was known to have links to extremism but was not considered to be a major player.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:26, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Islamist terrorist attacks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080822121132/http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jmWd6R_7NPYZhvm155_PrCKp6g6w to http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jmWd6R_7NPYZhvm155_PrCKp6g6w

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:52, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Two comments

1. By definition (Geneva Conventions), military installations and members of armed forces in active service are legitimate targets for enemy action and calling them "terrorist attacks" has more to do with propaganda than with law. It would be good to screen the list and discuss attacks where the target was a military installation or personnel (Lee Rigby, etc.).
2. It would be desirable - although unsure if doable - to differentiate between religiously motivated acts of terror and the politically motivated ones. For example, the majority of attacks linked to the Kashmir conflict are unrelated to any Islamist ideology but have been carried out as the region's 70 years old struggle for independence. Similar situation may be in other contexts. To give an example, we don't list terror attacks by the Irish Republican Army under "Catholic terrorism", do we? — kashmiri ^TALK 09:18, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

While I agree with you, Kashmiri, and have argued in the past that suicide bombings in Afghanistan have more to do with on-going political conflict between two armed groups in that country than with "Islamism", the bottom line is that Wikipedia's policy against original research does not allow us to make such determinations on our own. We must rely on what reliable sources say, and if they describe an incident as an Islamist terrorist attack, we consider it an Islamist terrorist attack. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:30, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@Malik Shabazz: I agree in principle, althouth we do always have a choice between quoting Fox News and, say, The Guardian. We can also try to be even more ambitious and quote proper legal analyses in specialist (legal) journals... — kashmiri ^TALK 23:02, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Once again, Kashmiri, I agree with you, and when they elect me king of the encyclopedia that's how we'll do things. In the meantime, we all have to comply with the policies and guidelines that are in place.

As you know, the newspapers run on a very rapid news cycle and the journals publish whenever they publish. Historians and other scholars are rarely in a hurry. but Wikipedia editors seem to be. A look at the history of the list shows that within hours of an incident anywhere in the world, whether or not it has been labeled "terrorism" and frequently before authorities have had the opportunity to investigate the motivation, editors rush to add it to the list. Certainly if later scholarly analysis were to change the initial conclusions, we would change it, but I'm not aware of that happening. Yet. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:51, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

That's precisely why we have are expected to avoid WP:PRIMARY sources, like news reports. I have been editing for years and sort of know how WP works. Just I'd like to see more caution about certain sensitive topics (like, linking religion and terrorism). — kashmiri ^TALK 08:54, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Disagree, Kashmiri, Lee Rigby was not a legitimate military target. The attack on random soldier had no military objective except terrorism (and treason and murder).Yohananw (talk) 07:25, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2017

Elpadron (talk) 14:15, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Note: Closing; empty request. st170e 16:41, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2017

183.89.55.90 (talk) 23:30, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

This list is missing all of the Islamic attacks in Thailand. There have been over 50 Islamic attacks in the South of Thailand and most recently in a Children's hospital in Bangkok.

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:33, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2017

{{subst:trim|

Please include the following in the list of Islamic terror attacks:. ref>Another wicked edit page

On 22 March 2017, a terrorist attack took place in the vicinity of the Palace of Westminster in London, seat of the British Parliament. The attacker, 52-year-old Briton Khalid Masood, drove a car into pedestrians on the pavement along the south side of Westminster Bridge and Bridge Street, injuring more than 50 people, four of them fatally. After the car crashed into the perimeter fence of the Palace grounds, Masood abandoned it and ran into New Palace Yard where he fatally stabbed an unarmed police officer. He was then shot by an armed police officer and died at the scene.

Not done: Please see requested dated 28 May below. – Train2104 (t • c) 17:17, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2017

Why aren't the Islamist terrorist attack in Sweeden from 7. april 2017 on this list?

79.161.39.98 (talk) 07:12, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:33, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done I added the 2017 Stockholm attack Agpagpagp (talk) 23:22, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2017

Please add to the list: Year: 2017 Location: Turkey Date: January 1, 2017 Description: ISIS claimed responsibility for the attack perpetrated by Abdulkadir Masharipov using an AK-47 rifle at the Reina nightclub during the New Year celebration in Istambul. Deaths: 39 Injured: 70

Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Istanbul_nightclub_shooting http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-38673154 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-38481521 Ricardokramer (talk) 04:51, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done I added it. Agpagpagp (talk) 23:34, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 May 2017

The terrorist attach on Westminster referenced here appears to be missing from your list

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Westminster_attack 2A02:C7F:643B:C400:6881:219C:1468:E9B0 (talk) 21:38, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

•  Not done Khalid Masood: London attacker had no links to Isis or al-Qaeda, says Met Police. He was almost certainly a lone wolf crank who went on an ego trip with a car and a knife, but not linked to any terrorist organisation.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:59, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Just because he wasn't part of a group doesn't mean it wasn't Islamist. Just before the attack he texted "that he was waging jihad in revenge against Western military action in Muslim countries in the Middle East." [[7]] That seems to me like it is seeking "to further a perceived Islamic religious or political cause". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agpagpagp (talk • contribs) 23:39, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Miss Nice attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Nice_attack

Miss in the list this attack which made 87 dead in Nice France!! Killy-the-frog (talk) 08:22, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

It is ridiclious that some people here still they that it was an Islamic terror attack. "French Prime Minister Manuel Valls was quoted in the Le Journal du Dimanche newspaper as saying investigators believe Bouhlel was somehow “radicalized very quickly.” ". I hope we don't need to argue about what radicalized means.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/17/mohamed-lahouaiej-bouhlel-nice-truck-attacker-was-/ --78.35.118.191 (talk) 22:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Be careful in your wording. It's not an Islamic terror attack, it's an Islamist terror attack. Huge difference. But today, almost a year later, it's pretty much talked of and written of, as being an Islamist terrorist attack... except in this article. But we go by consensus of editors here at wikipedia which is fair and square. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:03, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Re The Nice truck attack - You make a false dichotomy between Islamist and Islamic, Fyunck(click). What is called islamism, or Islamic radical supremacist fundamentalism, jihadism, salafism, is self-evidently a part of Islam. Nuances about how widespread, when introduced, where condoned, are matters of research. But your agenda to whitewash their large overlap and rollback all edits is reportable vandalism.Yohananw (talk) 08:36, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are referring to with "your agenda." I have no agenda so your vandalism statement is just balderdash. As far as your false dichotomy I just go by standard definitions. Islamic - relating to Islam. Islamist - an advocate or supporter of Islamic militancy or fundamentalism. This article is about Islamist terrorist attacks, not Islamic terrorist attacks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:58, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

This discussion is getting of track. Holland himself called it an act of Islamic terrorism. http://www.lemonde.fr/politique/article/2016/07/15/attentat-de-nice-les-responsables-politiques-entre-emotion-et-colere_4969928_823448.html --Arcadius Romanus (talk) 19:36, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

As stated 2 weeks ago, this discussion got side-tracked. There is little editing rationale discussed above, and the Nice attack IS in the list. With good reason – the article WP:TOPIC and WP:LEDE are written broadly enough to include Jihadist-terrorism, Islamist-terrorism, ISIS-terrorism, ISIS-inspired-terrorism, Muslim-on-Muslim-terrorism, and Islamic-terrorism related attacks. The unifying term for all of these is "terrorism". And for the victims, there is little point is saying "I was attacked by an Islamic terrorist..." vice "I was attacked by an Islamist terrorist...". So, as the discussion above heavily leans towards inclusion of Nice, I have removed the template. – S. Rich (talk) 18:37, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Had you clicked on the link in the template, you would have seen that it relates to the following section of the talk page, not this one. Contrary to your assertion, this article is not about the panoply of Islam-related violence you describe. As the edit notice indicates, it includes only incidents described by reliable sources as Islamist terrorist attacks. No reliable sources, not in the list. No sources calling it an Islamist terrorist attack, not in the list. Please review the talk page archive for further information. I'd be happy to pursue this at WP:NOR/N once again if necessary. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:05, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I did click the link, but whoever posted the template provided a misleading title on it (e.g., Nice was not nice). This has been corrected so that interested editors can clearly see that the concern is about the Manchester attack. (If the Nice attack concern is resolved, then you might remove that link from the template.) – S. Rich (talk) 13:47, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Did you forget?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1977_Hanafi_Siege — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.112.141 (talk) 15:54, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Unless you can cite some reliable sources that describe the siege as an Islamist terrorist attack, it doesn't qualify as an Islamist terrorist attack for purposes of this list. See WP:Verifiability and WP:No original research. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:56, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

2017 Manchester attack

Manchester was obviously a terror attack and ISIL claimed responsibility. They never claim responsibility for things they did not do. It's like many other attacks listed here. Also, this topic, as it is connected to ISIL, is subject to 1RR Legacypac (talk) 15:54, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Re this edit: I'm sorry if it looks like 1RR, but it simply isn't supported by the sourcing that this attack was the work of ISIL. As per usual, it is WP:PRIMARY coming from them, and the reliable news sourcing says that the claim is unverified at the moment. At the risk of dragging in Godwin's law, you might just as well listen to Joseph Goebbels as listen to the propaganda department of ISIL. They are full of sh!t and will claim responsibility for anything to get publicity. As usual with this article, it *isn't* an Islamist terrorist attack unless reliable sources such as the investigators say that it was, which in this case they haven't. The British police investigation is ongoing, and they are playing their cards very close to their chest.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:19, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. We can't use WP:SYNTH to connect "Manchester was obviously a terror attack" + "ISIL claimed responsibility" = Islamist terror attack. Also, we need to have a prominent edit notice at the top of this article to that effect, because this is not the first time that someone has jumped the gun.- MrX 16:28, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Like this one, which has appeared above the edit box for more than two years whenever anybody edits the article and informs editors about the applicability of WP:V and WP:IRS and the need for reliable sources that describe an attack as both terrorist and Islamist, and warns them that unreferenced list items may be removed? An edit notice like that? Good luck getting editors to pay attention. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:07, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, something like that would work very nicely—or so you would think.- MrX 03:21, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

You would think so, wouldn't you. Who was it who described man (i.e., human beings) as the thinking animal? LOL — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:02, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

The default position in this article is to wait for a talk page consensus before adding new examples. Otherwise, we just go round in circles having the same arguments over and over again. Let's get some fresh eyes on this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:32, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

This is rapidly becoming Nice attack mark two. I don't think it is in much dispute that fringe Islamist politics was the root cause of the Manchester attack, but the investigators have not said this, and an official investigation could take months before all of the details are published.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:27, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

You know, you wrote "The default position in this article is to wait for a talk page consensus before adding new examples." But there is nothing per Wikipedia rules that says any such thing. In fact, assuming you have sources to back you up, it says to be bold. To force an editor to not add something till 50 people agree with him is flat out wrong. There are sources for this being an islamist terrorist attack. Could those sources be proven wrong in the future?...of course. A year from now new "sourced" info could come forth that changes minds. In that case we'll change the article since we do have that flexibility. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:42, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I've said before that the "List of" format of this article is causing more problems than it solves. It encourages WP:OR and WP:SYNTH to a high degree, and we end up going round in circles.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:08, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

You're mistaken, Fyunck, about Wikipedia's "default position". When material is challenged, it is the responsibility of the editor wishing to add it to build consensus for its inclusion. See WP:ONUS.

Also, if this is such an open-and-shut case, why doesn't 2017 Manchester Arena bombing describe the bombing as Islamist terrorism? Why isn't that article in any categories related to Islamist terrorism? This list should follow the facts as described in the article, not establish its own "facts". (This is true of every incident that has its own Wikipedia article, not just this one.) — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 11:29, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I am not mistaken about the default position. If an edit is challenged, sure you try and build consensus. However that is not what was said at all. There was no parameter about "if challenged." There was simply the statement about not adding new examples until discussed, and that is not true anywhere on Wikipedia. And this list doesn't need to follow any other article. Heck, the 2016 Nice attack article says in the lead that it was Islamic terrorism, yet we don't follow that article. If it can be sourced that it was an Islamist attack then it can be added. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:53, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

You are mistaken about 2016 Nice attack. The lead says "the prosecutor for the Public Ministry ... said the attack bore the hallmarks of jihadist terrorism" (my emphasis) and that the French president "called the attack an act of Islamic terrorism". Unfortunately, "bearing the hallmarks" of something doesn't make it that thing (ask somebody who resembles Denzel Washington if he is Denzel Washington) and a politician's speech is not a reliable source for facts. That article, too, does not attribute any motive for the attack and is not included in any categories related to Islamist terrorism. Again, if these cases are so open-and-shut, what do you know that dozens of other Wikipedia editors don't? that hundreds, if not thousands, of newspaper reporters and editors don't? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:01, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Then we have a HUGE disagreement on what is a reliable source of information. The President of France saying it was Islamic terrorism is good enough for most any wikipedia article. And "thousands of newspaper reporters" is such a ridiculous statement, I'm shocked you'd even say it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:38, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh really? Since when have politicians become reliable sources for facts? If it's a fact, why is it attributed like an opinion? And again, if it's such an open-and-shut case, why doesn't the article state as a fact that the attack was motivated by Islamism, and why isn't it in any of the relevant categories? (Hint: Because it hasn't been established that it was an Islamist terrorist attack.) — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 10:38, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes really. When the president of France tells you it's Islamic terrorism it means a great deal. But seemingly not to you. But it doesn't matter if it's the President of France, Reuters News Service, The Hindu Times, The Chicago Tribune, The Straits Times, Manitoba news columnist Spencer Fernando, Yahoo News, or France 24. The list goes on and on. It is considered an act of Islamist terrorism. When newspapers talk of the more than 230 people killed by Islamist terrorism in France in the past couple years, the Nice Bastille Day attack is always included. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:41, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Manchester Arena Attack Research

Inasmuch as several editors have so kindly asked for clarification on how the Manchester Bombing meets this article's inclusion criteria of "Terror attacks by Islamist extremists to further a perceived Islamic religious or political cause have occurred globally", I here provide the following additional sources and notes which are much too lengthy to include in the article page itself. Note that the main article for 2017 Manchester Arena bombing already has 75 references and is still growing rapidly. Some of this material is cited in the main article, so I'm not sure how this article contradicts the other article. Feel free to add more when available:

1. Salman Abedi was a known Islamist Extremist (from the main Wiki article) "He was known to British security services but was not regarded as a high risk. A community worker told the BBC he had called a hotline five years before the bombing to warn police about Abedi's views and members of Britain’s Libyan diaspora said they had "warned authorities for years" about Manchester's Islamist radicalisation.
2. Salman Abedi was obsessed with the Quran as described by co-worshippers at the Didsbury Mosque. "He didn't seem to like bad words being said about ISIS. It is clear he was radicalized".
3. Bomber was part of a larger ISIS network. Abedi's 23-year-old brother Ismael was arrested in Chorlton-cum-Hardy in south Manchester in relation to the attack. Police carried out operations in two other areas of south Manchester and another address in the Whalley Range area. Three other men were arrested, and police talked about a likely "network" supporting the bomber.
4. Britain raises Terror Threat to maximum level "Critical". They would only do this if they thought that they were dealing with a larger network.
5. Travel to Libya, Germany and Syrian training camps.
6. Libyan ISIS Arrests - Hashem Abedi, 18, who lives in Libya, has reportedly been arrested by a Tripoli militia, which suspects him of Isis links. Italian authorities mention the very recent contacts between the brothers as part of their evidence for doing this.
7. Ariana Grande concert was a prime Islamist Extremist Target (religiously motivated purpose) - Mubin Shaikh, a former extremist, believes ISIS viewed the attack as a kind of perverted "PR opportunity." "To hit a den of immorality, as ISIS acolytes are calling it, it's a great target for them," he said. "Ariana Grande is a big name brand; the media will descend on it. Children being killed will get coverage, and that emotional reaction. So, all these things are hitting at the same time at the same place."
8. Sophisticated bomb-making skills point to organized terror - Terror experts said the type of bomb used in Monday night's attack - which left 22 dead - points the finger towards a sophisticated explosives-making operation. Former Scotland Yard counter-terror officer David Videcette said: "It sounds likely to have been a device carried in a bag containing a tub with chemicals and then surrounded by nuts, bolts and nails to cause the maximum amount of damage. Such devices are extremely difficult to get right.
9. Libyan authorities call this an ISIS terror attack - citing the brother's interaction.(See #6 above).
10. French authorities call it ISIS terror attack -
11. British investigators call it ISIS terror attack - "Investigators believe Abedi was part of a larger Isis-inspired terror network" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coriantumr15 (talk • contribs) 03:31, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

References

Your reading and logic skills are very poor (being "part of a larger Isis-inspired terror network"[8] does not make the bombing an "ISIS terror attack" by a long shot), but if that's what British investigators are saying, then I withdraw my objection to including the Manchester bombing in the list. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:48, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Police ultimately concluded that Abedi acted alone. Pincrete (talk) 21:29, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Evidence to Exclude Manchester Event

Please list here any specific definitive references showing that this is not an Islamist Extremist attack for religiously motivated purposes: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coriantumr15 (talk • contribs) 02:54, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

1. The lack of a single reliable source in which an authority describes the bombing as an Islamist terrorist attack, as required by Wikipedia's policies requiring verifiability and prohibiting original research. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:18, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2017

United Kingdom 22 March 2017, a terrorist attack took place in the vicinity of the Palace of Westminster in London, seat of the British Parliament. The attacker, 52-year-old Briton Khalid Masood, drove a car into pedestrians on the pavement along the south side of Westminster Bridge and Bridge Street, injuring more than 50 people, four of them fatally. 86.153.148.57 (talk) 09:20, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Failure to cite a reliable source. TompaDompa (talk) 10:38, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

It has been asked several times to add this (see above threads), but there is no evidence that he was involved with any terrorist organisations.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:16, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

That article categorizes the attack as Islamic terrorism with Jihad as the motive. That shouldn't be contradicted in this article. And the attacker being a card-carrying member of an international terror organization is not a requirement for the incident to be Islamist terrorism. --Local hero ^talk 01:38, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Local hero is right: that article describes the attack as Islamist-related terrorism, and in the infobox cites an "exclusive" Independent article based on unnamed "security agencies" about the alleged message supposedly sent by Khalid Masood on WhatsApp before his suicidal attack. The article also has four or five paragraphs about the motive. Each of the officials quoted in the article equivocate about whether the attack was Islamist terrorism. Bottom line: I didn't see any reliable sources cited in the article that call the attack an Islamist terrorist attack, nor does the article use such a description as an unsourced assertion. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:43, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

In the message, sent just minutes before he began the rampage in which five people died and 50 were injured, the 52-year-old Muslim convert had declared that he was waging jihad in revenge against Western military action in Muslim countries in the Middle East. The person who received the message has been extensively questioned, but freed after the police and MI5 concluded that he was not part of a plot and had no prior knowledge of what was unfolding on 22 March.[9] So, the unnamed security agencies are the police and MI5 - well, MI5, but, you get the point. Note that MI5 is also known as the Security Service. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:25, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Mr rnddude. I didn't pick up that subtlety. Nevertheless, an off-the-record comment, even from an MI5 officer, is not a particularly good source. If it was MI5's position, it would have been announced at a press conference, not leaked it to the Independent. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:26, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I clicked on the talk page because I was amazed that the article had over-looked this attack, but I'm even more amazed now on seeing that there's any debate as to whether it qualifies as an Islamist terrorist attack. Wikipedia's own article on the event makes it clear in the first couple paragraphs that it was. 96.237.180.238 (talk) 19:13, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2017

United Kingdom: 22.March 2017 Westminster Bridge Attack 5 dead, 40 injured 213.123.199.209 (talk) 09:48, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 09:51, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Did you forget?

I know no one was killed and this was a failed attempt but you could capture it as 0 killed/ 0 hurt ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Reid

Failed and thwarted attempts belong on this list List of thwarted Islamist terrorist attacks Coriantumr15 (talk) 03:28, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Watch List - August 2017

Some major terrorism incidents occured in August 2017, several of which are strongly suspected of being Islamic Jihadists but we are waiting for positive indentification of motives from authoritative sources before adding to this list. Please add better references:

1. 2017 Barcelona attack - Three separate attacks in Barcelona (location pictured) kill at least fifteen people and injure more than one hundred others. Very strong indication all committed by one organized Islamic Jihadists terror cell.
2. Moroccan Gang Arrested After Fatal Knife Rampage In Finland - 5 Muslims arrested after knife attacks while screaming Allah Akbar.
3. Siberia Knife Attack - Eight stabbed in Russian city, police shoot man dead in Surgut, Siberia.
4. 2017 Herat mosque attack - two suicide bombers entered a Shi'ite mosque named "Jadwadia" in Herat, Afghanistan during an evening prayer session. After throwing explosives into the crowd, one of the two men detonated his vest. The remaining attacker continued firing on the crowd before detonating his vest as well. The attack caused 30 casualties and left 64 people injured.
5. August 2017 Lahore explosion - On 7 August 2017, a truck carrying explosive material accidentally went off at Band Road in Lahore, Punjab, Pakistan. As a result of explosion, two people were killed while 35 people were wounded. Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan is suspected to have perpetrated the attack.
6. Levallois-Perret attack - On the morning of 9 August 2017, a car rammed into a group of soldiers in the Levallois-Perret commune in the northwestern suburbs of Paris. Six soldiers were injured in the attack, three of them seriously. The driver fled the scene and was arrested on a highway between Boulogne and Calais, a couple of hours later. According to the French police the incident was terrorist-related.
7. August 2017 Quetta suicide bombing - On 12 August 2017, a suicide bombing took place near a Pakistan army truck in Quetta, Balochistan, Pakistan, leaving 15 people dead including 8 soldiers, while injuring 40 others.[1] The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant – Khorasan Province claimed responsibility for the attack.
8. 2017 Ouagadougou attack - 18 people were killed and 25 others were injured[2] when suspected jihadists opened fire on a Turkish restaurant and hotel in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso on 13 August 2017.[3] The attackers took hostages after being cornered by police and were killed in an ensuing shootout.
9. Konduga Bombing - Aug 15, A woman bomber blew herself up and killed 27 others at a market in the village of Konduga near Maiduguri.

Coriantumr15 (talk) 03:43, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

References

Hamburg attack is missing in the list

Very informative list dealing with very distressing incidents! Additionally I have the 2017 Hamburg attack in mind which is not included yet. Shouldn't it be included? --Stolp (talk) 11:25, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

"It is not yet clear what the suspect's motivations were." and "The attacker... was also suffering from mental health problems, officials said." according to the WP:RS - so, er, no, it shouldn't be. For inclusion, an attack should be identified in the same single reliable source as both Islamist and terrorist. That usually requires, at the least, a trial for small-scale attacks like this. The Hamburg attack actually appears to be lack notability, unless it is determined to have been terrorist in nature. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:39, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

O.k., let's wait what the Public Prosecutor General of the Federal Court of Justice will finally find out. That the Prosecutor General investigates makes it very likely that this attack has an islamistic background, also stated in the press: "A radical islamistic background suggests itself", German newspaper Zeit Online --Stolp (talk) 21:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

"...suggests itself" - so, nothing proven, just speculation. We don't do speculation, original research, or synthesis and there is no rush. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:46, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

2017 Westminster attack

Why is the 2017 Westminster attack not included in the list? --Stolp (talk) 11:35, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

See the various threads above--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:44, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

This attack satisfies the criteria for inclusion, I think - single source citing Islamist terrorism. Added for now, anyway. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:47, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Normally I would have added the incident myself, but as I'm new here and as I have seen that there was a discussion before, I wanted to understand whether a lobby tries for whatever reason to oppress some incidents which are in other parts of Wikipedia stated clearly as Islamist terrorist attacks. So the 2017 Westminster attack is of course in the list of Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present), and I would also add to the list here for the same reason June 2017 London Bridge attack. --Stolp (talk) 12:43, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

@Bastun: Unless there's something I missed, the source you added doesn't call this Islamist terrorism by a long shot. What it does say is we are treating this as a terrorist incident until we know otherwise. Islamism is not mentioned at all, nor is jihadism or even Islam (though the word "Muslim" is used once, namely in the sentence We must recognise now that our Muslim communities will feel anxious at this time given the past behaviour of the extreme right wing and we will continue to work with all community leaders in the coming days.). TompaDompa (talk) 13:27, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

@TompaDompa: Hope that with Independent news from 27 April 2017 everything is clear: "Muslim convert declared that he was waging jihad in revenge against Western military action in the Middle East" --Stolp (talk) 19:15, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Am I missing something? There are now (00:05 UTC) three sources, and none of the three describes the attack as Islamist terrorism or the attacker as an Islamist. Please read WP:No original research. We don't make our own conclusions based on what we think is most likely the case, or by squinting and "reading between the lines" of what the sources say. There has been no source cited describing it as Islamist terrorism, so why is the attack in the list? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:06, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

No, Malik Shabazz (and TompaDompa) - my bad, I misread the source I used. Self-reverted. (Just to note, TompaDompa, the 'ping' template doesn't seem to actually ping a user - at least, I'm not seeing a notification.) Stolp, apologies, there needs to be a single reliable source calling the attack Islamist terrorism. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:57, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Huh. Looking at the {{ping}} template documentation, it seems like the issue is that I added it to a comment I had already signed without signing it again (The notification will only work successfully if you sign your post in the same edit in which you use this template.). Good to know. TompaDompa (talk) 18:07, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, this list doesn’t make sense if some guys try to suppress major incidents which are commonly regarded as islamist terrorism. I will later include it again and I explain why: We had several occasions in Europe where lone-wolves committed this kind of crimes. Most prominent in Europe so far were 2016 Nice attack and 2016 Berlin attack. When I read the discussion on Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks/Archive 8# 2017 Manchester attack I am completely puzzled why there are still doubts whether the March 22, 2017 incident has to be included here. On March 22, 2017 and the following time the police speakers and the British press obviously were cautious to not label this incident as islamist in public. This happened in order to take care for the sensation of the muslims in Britain and to not stir up right wing minded people. I can understand this intention. If one reads this article from huffingtonpost. it is evident why the British still avoid the term islamist in public. And you can find the March 22, 2017 incident listed here in the express list of terror in Europe avoiding the term islamist, but all are obviously islamist terrorism. Anyway, there are sources which tell that London March 22, 2017 incident is regarded as an islamist terror attack. You can find this within Wikipedia and outside:

Inside Wikipedia the article 2017 Westminster attack can be found in categories Islamic terrorism in England and Islamic terrorist incidents in 2017. You can find the article also in Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present) and you can find the article listed in List of terrorist incidents linked to ISIL. On position 22 in the List of terrorist incidents in March 2017 you can also find the article, there labeled as Islamic terrorism in the West and linked to this list here! So it is even more crazy to not find it listed here. In the French speaking Wikipedia for example the corresponding Liste d'attaques terroristes islamistes includes of course Royaume-Uni: le 22 mars 2017.

If you look outside Wikipedia on reliable sources like for example:

• Times of India list from June 4, 2017: March 22, 2017: Investigators describe the lone-wolf attack as "Islamist related terrorism".
• New York Times from Aug. 17, 2017: Islamic extremists have carried out over a dozen deadly terror attacks in Western Europe since 2015, killing more than 330 civilians. This list of course also includes London incident on March 22, 2017.

So the evidence is there. But please, where is the source which clearly states why March 22, 2017 is definite no act of islamist terrorism, so that everybody can understand why it should be excluded in the list here? --Stolp (talk) 03:04, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, Stolp - nobody is trying to suppress anything. What you actually seem to be saying is "here is an interpretation for why none of the official sources describe this attack as Islamist terrorism, therefore let's bypass that requirement and the RFC on here and go with my interpretation." We won't be going down the rabbit hole of trying to prove a negative. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:28, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

The closest thing to a motive for the attack was this story in The Independent on 27 April. This said that Masood reportedly sent a WhatsApp message minutes before the attack, saying that he was "waging jihad in revenge against Western military action in Muslim countries in the Middle East" (not a direct quote of what he said, this wasn't revealed). The Westminster attack fits in with the pattern of lone wolf attacks, but isn't a convincing example of an attack planned by an organisation.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:30, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

This list doesn't define that the terror has to be related to an organization. We also list lone-wolves in case they are Islamist inspired. So, sorry that again I have to state that the interpretation to leave this incident away is wrong. We are by no means dependent on official views of any country of this world. If we would be dependent on the official views, we just could stop creating a free lexicon like Wikipedia in a lot of countries of this world. But we want to create a free lexicon and Wikipedians who work on specific themes should be (in an ideal manner) quite familiar with the matter where they want to contribute. Here we are talking about Islamist terrorists and if one reads carefully what I have written so far in this discussion can't really deny that March 22, 2017 was an incident which has to be part of this list. If a source like Independent tells that the attacker was waging jihad, then it is not original research to say that it was Islamist terrorism, but just other words for the same thing. And if Times of India two months later explicit writes that this was due to investigators an act of Islamist related terrorism then my experience let me conclude that it has to be included here. --Stolp (talk) 17:22, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm British and the British police and media have been wary of giving a clear reason for the attack, partly because Masood died during it and will never face charges. The main evidence about why he did it is the reported WhatsApp message. He was in many ways a small time loser who decided to go out with a bang. ISIL claims responsibility for the actions of people like this, but they are not professional terrorists.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:41, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm German and can recommend DW public international broadcaster. Their view here is another example, that it can't be wrong to list March 22, 2017 incident in this list. --Stolp (talk) 18:17, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

"This list doesn't define that the terror has to be related to an organization." Please actually read the recent RfC. "We also list lone-wolves in case they are Islamist inspired." No, we don't, we go by what official reports featured in WP:RS say. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:03, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Stolp, for bringing the DW article to my attention. It's not something I would have come across on my own. I find it interesting in what it says—and what it leaves unsaid. Please note that the attacker, Khalid Masood, is not described as an Islamist, nor is the attack described as Islamist. Instead, we are told that Masood "had recently lived in Birmingham, which commentators and researchers say has become a breeding ground for Muslim extremists" and he "also spent time in Saudi Arabia between 2005 and 2015". In other words, "we'll shadow and shade facts to make him appear like an Islamist, but we're not willing to put our reputation on the line and call him that in print."

Two of Wikipedia's three "core policies" are WP:Verifiability and WP:No original research. At their essence, they say that we add something to the encyclopedia because a reliable source says that it's true, not because we believe in our heart that it's true. And we don't "connect the dots" to draw conclusions that reliable sources have not drawn. The bottom line is this: If no reliable source is willing to call the Westminster attack an Islamist terrorist attack, or attribute it to known Islamists, it has no business in our list of Islamist terrorist attacks, no matter how much it resembles other Islamist terrorist attacks. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:20, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

The point that I'm trying to make is that the WhatsApp message is the only significant insight given by the British authorities into why Masood did it. He was known to the police for links to Islamic extremism but was not considered a major threat. The foreign media may have reported or interpreted things that the British authorities didn't actually say.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:23, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ianmacm: Thanks for your friendly comments which I appreciate

@Bastun: Sorry, I don’t want to be unfriendly and I do not want to educate or blame. I can see your long Wikipedia experience. So, I am the newcomer, but just want to help…

@Malik Shabazz: For me it sounds like hairsplitting to not recognize that jihadism and Islamist terrorism are quite the same. But o.k., some more reliable sources and hopefully no original research by me which might convince:

BBC reported on March 23, 2017 that Prime Minster Theresa May also said it was wrong to describe the attack as Islamic, claiming it was "Islamist terrorism - it's a perversion of a great faith".

If my English understanding is good enough, May distinguishes between Islamic and Islamist. This is good, and unfortunately not always done, even not in Wikipedia, but she clearly said the day after the attack that it was "Islamist terrorism". And that it was Islamist terrorism comes very clear some days later in The Daily Telegraph:

The Daily Telegraph has written on March 27, 2017 that the “Islamist behind the Westminster terror outrage was investigated by MI5 as part of a plot to blow up an Army base using a remote-controlled car”. So, the “Islamist” Khalid Masood alias “Adrian Ajao, 52, who killed four people, including a police officer in last Wednesday's attack, is understood to have been probed six years ago over alleged connections to four al-Qaeda-inspired terrorists.”

ARD terrorist expert Georg Mascolo explains in this report, unfortunately only in German, that the March 22, 2017 incident can be regarded as part of a new sequence of lone-wolf attacks like the 2016 Nice attack and the 2016 Berlin attack. These incidents are already part of our list here. So why should we exclude 2017 Westminster attack in case we can refer to those mentioned BBC and Daily Telegraph reports? --Stolp (talk) 20:41, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Stolp, for pointing out the article from The Daily Telegraph that described Masood/Ajao as an Islamist. That being the case, I withdraw my objection to including the Westminster attack in the list. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:46, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your discernment, Malik Shabazz. So I have included the incident again. --Stolp (talk) 23:38, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 October 2017

Eduard-Henri Avril (talk) 17:05, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 17:11, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of Islamist terrorist attacks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061116234632/http://www.thestreet.com/_googlen/funds/international-pf/10252100.html?cm_ven=GOOGLEN&cm_cat=FREE&cm_ite=NA to http://www.thestreet.com/_googlen/funds/international-pf/10252100.html?cm_ven=GOOGLEN&cm_cat=FREE&cm_ite=NA
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151004201543/https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/terrorism/terrorism_cases to https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/terrorism/terrorism_cases
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151006004407/http://terrorism.grady.uga.edu/history/ to http://terrorism.grady.uga.edu/history/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:29, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Munich Massacre? Lockerbie? Random start date of 1979?

How is something as well-known as the Munich_massacre not listed here? I'm pretty sure it was at one time. Do things just get randomly removed? By what random criteria? Or what about Lockerbie? Pan Am Flight 103. That was on the list before also. And why start this list at a random date of 1979? That doesn't help any to create a comprehensive, true-to-life list of attacks, if you cut of the start-point at some random date.Jimhoward72 (talk) 18:42, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Please take a look at the title of this page. Was the massacre at the Munich Olympics perpetrated by Islamists? Was the bombing of Flight 103 perpetrated by Islamists? This isn't a list of terrorist attacks by Muslims. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:18, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

So, I'm not complaining about the attacks on Israelis on the page, but according to how you describe it, those attacks wouldn't fit in the category either.Jimhoward72 (talk) 23:55, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

It depends who was responsible for the attack in question. Was it Hamas (the Islamic Resistance Movement) or a secular group such as the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, Fatah, or the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine? Only attacks by Islamists should be included here. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:34, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

As a rule of thumb, this article lists attacks motivated by an extremist interpretation of Islam. On the other hand, terrorist attacks that were political in nature, for example within the narrative of an armed struggle against Western policies or military presence, do not belong here. Agreed that the line can get blurred with attacks perpetrated (or claimed) by extremist organisations who use Islamism as a political tool where lines between a political and religious conflict have conflated. — kashmīrī ^TALK 09:59, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Was that a rhetorical question? Our article on the Munich massacre (1972) specifies that the group behind the massacre was the Black September Organization. The core membership included dissident members of Fatah. Whether they still maintained links to their former organization is disputed. Dimadick (talk) 13:43, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, Munich 1972 and Lockerbie 1988 are not the work of extremists pursuing the worldwide goal of forcing Islam on everyone else whether they like it or not. This largely a modern phenomenon linked to 21st century groups.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:45, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2018

In the section under the 2000s, the year 2001 does not include the September 11th attacks on the World Trade Center in New York City, the Pentagon in Washington D.C., or United Airlines flight 93 in Pennsylvania. Change the section labeled "2001" to include the September 11th terrorist attacks on the United States.</ref>https://www.history.com/topics/9-11-attacks</ref> OscarSwift09 (talk) 16:29, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for pointing out that incredible oversight. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:19, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing said issue. I also noticed that the year 2013 did not include the Boston Marathon Bombing, if that could be fixed as well. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OscarSwift09 (talk • contribs) 16:04, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I recently removed a large number of unsourced entries. The Boston Marathon bombing was accidentally removed alongside them. I added it back. TompaDompa (talk) 16:30, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

2005 Tentena market bombings

This happened in “Indonesia” and not “India” as listed. Chintan Kamani 21:04, 22 July 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ckamani (talk • contribs)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2018

don't make terrorism as based on religion so change it to terrorism only not Islamic terrorism dont change it every one will know Christian, jewish,and budhdhist and hindu and atheist terrorism--Mirja Haseem (talk) 06:18, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree that there is a risk involved in associating terrorism with religion. The word Islamist usually means that there is an overlap between religion and political conflicts as the motive.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:26, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2018

2005 7/7 Bombings United Kingdom - London 56 dead and 700 injured

Carried out by 4 radicalised Islamist's 3 were sons of Pakistani immigrants and one was a convert born in Jamaica

3 explosives detonated inside the London underground and one on a Bus in Tavistock Square

Explosive used triacetone triperoxide 194.66.175.90 (talk) 07:59, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be much dispute that the 7 July 2005 London bombings were inspired by Islamist extremism, so this could be added.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:01, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

7/7/2005 London Bombings and 7/1/2015 Charlie Hebdo Shooting

I could not find them in the list. Why don't they fit into the criteria to be in the list?

EDIT: I found them among the removed unsourced entries, among many other very important events. Can I help somehow to give source to these items and get them back to the list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bertozzijr (talk • contribs) 08:31, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Agree - I see no reason not to classify 7/7 as a terrorist attack. Also missing: the Parsons Green bombing (15.09.2017). Maelli (talk) 18:13, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry but this is just playing on the words... Those are not Muslims because they killed innocent people. In Islamic low they are outside Islam the moment they killed or terror any innocent people. Media is Dirty. Unfortunately a lot of people are ignorant and brain washed. Bassamoo1 (talk) 12:21, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

12/17 NYC subway bombing

Should attempted attacks that incurred casualties be included on this list?

2017_New_York_City_attempted_bombing

There were four casualties in this incident. Note that this is more than several other events on the list.

```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Westsider (talk • contribs) 22:31, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Has it been described by reliable sources as a terrorist attack? I think you already know the answer is No. — Malik Shabazz <sup>Talk</sup>/<sub>Stalk</sub> 02:10, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry but this is just playing on the words... Those are not Muslims because they killed innocent people. In Islamic low they are outside Islam the moment they killed or terror any innocent people. Media is Dirty. Unfortunately a lot of people are ignorant and brain washed. Bassamoo1 (talk) 12:21, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2019

Israel - November 18, 2014 - Two Palestinians entered a synagogue where the congregants were performing their morning prayers. They were armed with axes, a gun and meat cleavers. They began attacking the congregants, killing four of the men and injuring seven others. A responding Druze policeman was also murdered by the men. Eleven months later, a fifth victim, who had been in a coma since the attack also succumbed to his wounds.

Sources:

• https://www.timesofisrael.com/11-months-on-rabbi-dies-of-wounds-from-jerusalem-synagogue-massacre/
• http://matzav.com/today-four-years-since-har-nof-massacre/

Israel - December 10, 2018 - A member of Hamas orchestrated a drive-by shooting in Ofra against a number of pedestrians, injuring seven, one of whom was a 21-year-old pregnant woman. The attack caused her to give birth prematurely. The baby died two days later.

Sources:

• https://www.timesofisrael.com/baby-dies-after-emergency-delivery-following-ofra-terror-attack/ DarkRose1010 (talk) 14:33, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Neither is cited as Islamist terrorism. See the edit notice for this article. TompaDompa (talk) 15:07, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2019

105.8.3.179 (talk) 09:23, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

2017 24 November Egypt IS Massacre of at least 311 Sufi Muslims in their mosque in Bir al Abed, Northern Sinai during Friday prayers

This is a glaring ommission.

One Source of many: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/24/world/middleeast/mosque-attack-egypt.html

 Done SITH (talk) 13:09, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2019

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Beirut_barracks_bombings - (305 victims (241 U.S. peacekeepers, 58 French peacekeepers and 6 civilians) + 2 suicide bombers, 75 injured) - Islamic Jihad Organisation carried out the attacks. SebiMack (talk) 12:58, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done SITH (talk) 13:12, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Throats cut?

BBC calls it knife wounds to the neck and our article lists it as throats cut, but the Scandinavian tourists in Morocco were beheaded. I’ve updated the article to be more accurate. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:50, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

It seems only one of them was beheaded. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:59, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Why is the January 2015 Charlie Hebdo attack with it's twelve deaths not included here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.253.246.108 (talk) 14:54, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry but this is just playing on the words... Those are not Muslims because they killed innocent people. In Islamic low they are outside Islam the moment they killed or terror any innocent people. Media is Dirty. Unfortunately a lot of people are ignorant and brain washed. Bassamoo1 (talk) 12:21, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Now, "Bassamoo1", that's silly. Not to attribute the Hebdo massacre to Islam would be comparable to separating the Crusades from Christianity because that faith preaches non-violence. (Indeed, to separate Islam and Moslems from the killings in Paris would be even more foolish, as the Koran and hadiths repeatedly urge violence against men, women, and even children who disparage or criticize Mohammed or the religion he presented. By contrast, there is no comparable endorsement of violence in Christianity, and the Crusades began only after four centuries' patient toleration of Moslem rape, murder, and oppression of the indigenous population of and pilgrims to the Levant.) Firstorm (talk) 12:56, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

"there is no comparable endorsement of violence in Christianity" You clearly haven't read the Bible [10]. Also, crusades were not organised "to protect the civilians", as you allege, but to wrest control of rich Mediterranean cities and trade routes; religion was only (again) used as a pretext for wars. — kashmīrī <sup>TALK</sup> 13:03, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

And you, dear "kashmiri", have clearly neither read the Koran nor understood the relationship between the two Biblical testaments. The Koran (to say nothing of hadith and sunnah) enjoins violence upon the Mohammedan faithful; by contrast, the Christian faithful are commanded to endure. You are, of course, entitled to your private opinion (as, implicitly, that the Crusades accorded with Biblical doctrine); you should not, however, confound personal prejudice with objective fact -- and this website attempts to present such verifiable facts. Firstorm (talk) 16:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I remind User:Firstorm and User:Kashmiri to observe WP:CIVILITY. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:09, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I thank you, "Horse Eye", for enjoining what all should regard as ordinary civility. However, the overriding issue here is accuracy; and as I see that the massacre of the staff of "Charlie Hebdo" has now been properly noticed as an example of Islamic terrorism, there is, I think, no need for further discussion. Firstorm (talk) 23:49, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Irrespective of including/excluding the Charlie Hebdo issue and irrespective of your knowledge/ignorance of ancient scriptures, your Firestorm childish attempts to judge two global religions based on Middle Ages wars, which are essentially an attack on one religion, are very likely to get you banned from Wikipedia. — kashmīrī <sup>TALK</sup> 06:52, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Request for Article

Hi, Can you enter the Kabul mosque bombing 2019 in main article and table? The incident happened a few weeks ago (in May 2019).Forest90 (talk) 15:23, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

 Not done No indication whatsoever that religion was the motive behind the attack. — kashmīrī <sup>TALK</sup> 08:13, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

New incident

Hi friend. Can somebody add this new article to main table of article? Gunman attack in Tripoli 2019 Thank you so much.Forest90 (talk) 13:12, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

 Not done The motive behind the attack is still unclear. Moreover, attacks against the military in a war context are absolutely legal. — kashmīrī <sup>TALK</sup> 08:18, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Why is the Florida Naval Base attack on December 2019 not included?

Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2401:4900:1b35:d75f:d0cd:7869:2ddd:faf2 (talk • contribs) 18:22, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

• Wikipedia does not jump the gun. An investigation is in progress. If and when this shooting is officially determined to be an act of Islamist-motivated terror, Wikipedia editors can include it. The relevant Wikipedia policy is WP:Verifiability. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 14 December 2019 (UTC)