Talk:Islamic terrorism

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): WillJB185.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Indefinite duration semi-protection
was placed per this discussion at RfPP. -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 19:43, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Media attention in the US moved
Media attention in the US was moved to a new section in Jihadist extremism in the United States. A Thousand Words (talk) 06:00, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems best if the issues regarding The Guardian article are resolved here in a non-destructive manner. David A (talk) 08:55, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * thanks for starting the discussion. The paragraph about media bias in the United States section still places WP:UNDUE weight on media bias, since the topic of this article is not Media in the United States. Let's look at Jihadist extremism in the United States, the media bias is only 1 out of 7 sections yet now constitutes a third of all US-specific information in this. It therefore stands to reason that this paragraph is disproportionately large. It would therefore seem the obvious choice that either it be deleted, tagged for undue weight or that more material is added in the United States section. The paragraph certainly did not belong in the lead section of this article and no coherent argument was ever made why it belonged there. A Thousand Words (talk) 09:08, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem. I definitely don't want people who dislike some of the statistics that you find and insert into articles to take the opportunity to get rid of you.
 * Anyway, I personally find your logic to make sense. David A (talk) 09:26, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I put it in the lead. And TWICE I suggested it might be better somewhere else, and then moved it to its own section. So it's not surprising no coherent argument was made why it belonged there, is it? The issue so far as I'm concerned is whether there should be a media section. Doug Weller  talk 09:54, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think media and broader societal perspectives on Islamic terrorism are an important part of this article. It is within the nature of terrorism that how society reacts to the threat of terrorism is a key part of the significance of terrorism. Terrorism necessarily is about a societal impact out of proportion to the numbers killed. I would be very happy for the media section under discussion to be expanded to include more citations and non-US perspectives. That would be, I suggest, the best way of handling the concerns raised. But I think the material currently there should be retained: it is well-sourced, it is relevant, it is an important part of the topic. (I am happy for it to be also used in Jihadist extremism in the United States.)
 * While most Islamist terrorism is against Muslims in majority Muslim countries, as per various citations in the article, this article generally has a bias towards Western perspectives. (The article proper, for example, begins by quoting Bush, Blair and Obama.) That reflects known biases in Wikipedia as an English-language resource largely written by people in the US, UK, Australia, Canada etc. Lots of sections of this article that are not explicitly US-specific, but are dominated by US views and US citations. Ergo, I suggest ' view that the media bias [section] [...] now constitutes a third of all US-specific information in this [article] is unintentionally undercounting US perspectives in the article. I do not see the media section as constituting undue weight. Bondegezou (talk) 10:28, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It is not an important part of the page, media bias is tangential to the main topic of the article, which is terrorism. There's a Media bias in the United States article where the material has a better home. All US-specific material should be moved into the United States section. A Thousand Words (talk) 10:57, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * All top-level sections should have a WP:GLOBAL perspective, they cannot be started using the flawed pieces from The Guardian about the US. A Thousand Words (talk) 11:16, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * We're talking about a short paragraph that is well sourced to an academic journal paper. I see no desperate need to remove it.
 * How terrorism is perceived is not tangential. It is central to the nature of terrorism.
 * All top-level sections should have a WP:GLOBAL perspective You've just made up that rule.
 * they cannot be started using the flawed pieces from The Guardian about the US Your claim that the Guardian piece is flawed is just your opinion. Anyway, the text cites an academic journal paper, exactly the sort of material that we should be citing.
 * Would it be better if this material was contextualised with more studies from other contexts? Yes. I'll see if I can find anything. Bondegezou (talk) 18:16, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I have WP:BOLDly re-worked this material to try and address the concerns stated. I have added 3 citations to academic papers, which should tackle any concerns with The Guardian article. It also demonstrates that the material meets WP:DUE. I have added material on a study of UK and Danish media to give a more WP:GLOBAL perspective. Given concerns about the amount of material, I have summarised the prior text so as to describe multiple studies at once, without going in depth into the details of the one aforementioned study. This is a big re-write: I hope other editors feel it responds to concerns expressed, but I am happy to receive feedback, or feel free to edit. Bondegezou (talk) 18:50, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I agree that the "all top sections must have a global perspective" isn't a guideline or policy. Doug Weller  talk 19:30, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:BOLD aside, there is already a discussion in progress. There is no WP:CONSENSUS that there should be a top-level section saying Media reporting in this article. How is a fringe field like Critical terrorism studies a good representation of expertise in the field of terrorism? Top-level sections should contain the WP:GLOBAL perspective first and foremost. Since this section does not do this, it should be split up and moved to the standalone articles for the respective country. A Thousand Words (talk) 04:39, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I hoped edits addressing the concerns raised would help move us to a consensus, but obviously that is up to what other editors think!
 * Should there be a top-level section? Well, WP:DUE tells us to look to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. I have demonstrated multiple high-quality sources on this topic area, i.e. more prominence. So I think there is a better argument for a top-level section than previously. I wondered about subsuming the section into something on societal attitudes/reactions to terrorism? I think the new text & citations are helpful, but I'm not wedded to where they are positioned within this article.
 * Nothing at the Critical terrorism studies article supports your characterisation of it as a "fringe field". As with your critique of The Guardian piece, that looks like your WP:OR. More to the point, the citations added do not situate themselves as being critical terrorism studies, nor are they by the research groups described in that article. The citations given are academic journals, the sort of high-quality sourcing we are meant to use on Wikipedia. I'm happy to defend any of them at WP:RSN.
 * WP:GLOBAL is only an essay, not a policy, but I take what it says seriously. We've moved from a single study in the US to research covering the US, UK and Denmark. I think that's a step in the right direction. Other sub-sections in this article have a similar approach, having examples from a number of different countries. Bondegezou (talk) 08:14, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I haven't used these yet, but some additional possible citations:
 * Powell (2011) - US study
 * Powell (2018) - follow-up study to previous
 * Jørndrup (2020) - small Danish study of one incident (may be too specific)
 * Połońska-Kimunguyi & Gillespie (2016a) - French case study (may be too specific)
 * Połońska-Kimunguyi & Gillespie (2016b) - larger study by same team, looking at French and German media Bondegezou (talk) 08:54, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * According to article critical theory: In sociology and political philosophy, the term Critical Theory describes the Western-Marxist philosophy ... isn't marxism a revolutionist theory advocating violence to accomplish change in society? Perhaps this is why I've never read an official report by say, the Swedish Defence University, Europol, the Norwegian FFI or the German Verfassungsschutz saying they employ critical theory. Is a theory advocating political violence useful for analysing ... terrorism? A Thousand Words (talk) 05:50, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It would be helpful if you could confine yourself to discussions of how to improve this article based on Wikipedia policy and reliable sources. WP:SOAPBOXing is not helpful. Bondegezou (talk) 08:02, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Another, more adjacent, conclusion that could have been drawn is that perhaps this article could use fewer critical theory creations and instead use public reports by by the relevant US agencies? Which agencies would those be? Doesn't the FBI publish annual reports? A Thousand Words (talk) 10:25, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Marxism is an ideology that has almost consistently used gulags/extermination camps that have murdered several tens of millions of innocent people against anybody who disagree with it. It should definitely not be used as a source for an article discussing terrorism.
 * In addition, is it really appropriate to use sources that claim that a disproportionate focus is placed on Islamist terrorism when the vast majority of all terrorism acts in the world as a whole are in fact of Islamist origin?
 * It seems like we are using rationally and morally upside-down priorities here. David A (talk) 10:43, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Anyway, official public reports seem like much better sources, if they are possible to find, yes. David A (talk) 10:51, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * We're not using Marxism as a source. is claiming, without justification, that every citation provided constitutes Marxist critical theory. This is not true. Citations given are to highly reputable academic journals, the sort of sourcing Wikipedia likes. So, let's take this paper, one of the first citations added: it makes no mention of Marxism, it makes no mention of "critical theory", it makes no mention of "Critical terrorism studies".
 * Can we focus the discussion on reality? Bondegezou (talk) 10:53, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * If editors have concerns about whether material constitutes a reliable source, we can take this to WP:RSN. Bondegezou (talk) 10:54, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay. My apologies for the misunderstanding then.
 * I still find the claim that a disproportionate amount of focus is placed on Islamist terrorism, when most terrorism in the world is in fact Islamist, illogical though. David A (talk) 10:58, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Have you read the papers cited?
 * If for example 60% of something was X, but media reports gave the impression that 90% of something was X, then that would be a disproportionate amount of focus on X, even though most of this something is X. That would not be illogical. What the various papers are doing is a lot more complex and nuanced than that, but the broader point stands.
 * (The UK/Danish study, rather than the US studies, is in the journal Critical Studies on Terrorism. That doesn't make it Marxist. It makes no mention of Marxism.) Bondegezou (talk) 11:04, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It would be great if you quoted reliable sources when making such outlandish claims. My source says that out of 199 terrorists incidents that occurred in the European Union in 2014, only 2 (TWO) were religiously motivated. That number was 33 out of 205 in 2017, 24 out of 129 in 2018, and 21 out of 119 in 2019. – all a far cry from "most". — kashmīrī  TALK  12:14, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 1KWords seems to have a fundamental misunderstanding of Marxism, which is not "a revolutionist theory advocating violence to accomplish change in society" but, as our article says, "a method of socioeconomic analysis that uses a materialist interpretation of historical development, better known as historical materialism, to understand class relations and social conflict as well as a dialectical perspective to view social transformation. Editors should not be throwing around terms that they don't understand, let alone using them as arguments to keep material out of an article. I doubt that we will ever get complete agreement, but fortunately WP:CONSENSUS says "In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever." Nor of course does claiming policies/guidelines we don't have or false claims about sources. Doug Weller  talk 13:50, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Just a note that I am referring to the world as a whole regarding the number of terrorism attacks. If there are an average of around 1650 Islamist terrorist attacks every year according to the statistics that I have read, that would be the majority as far as I am aware. Still, I may be wrong. David A (talk) 14:08, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * However, if I am mistaken, I concede this discussion. I am very busy elsewhere anyway. David A (talk) 14:30, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

What I'm primarily saying is that the focus on using fringe critical theory should take a back foot in favor of using public reports by national agencies, perhaps NSA, CIA or FBI in the United States section. These are obviously expert in the field and therefore should take priority. If such a strategy was adopted, the discussion wouldn't even have gotten derailed by debates about Marxism (which falls under WP:OTHERSTUFF. This isn't a question of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, it is an issue of scope, because Media bias isn't the topic of this article. A Thousand Words (talk) 06:43, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Except that information provided by government agencies tends to be of lower quality than that provided by researchers, particularly if a particular government cannot be termed as uninvolved. Simply, fairly frequent instances of state-sponsored terrorism (i.e., deliberate attacks targeting civilians), studied by academic centres and sometimes tracked by activists, are routinely missing from government reports due to a variety of political considerations. — kashmīrī  TALK  08:50, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Besides the fact that those are, as you say, government agencies and thus influenced by politics, particularly at this time, those are WP:Primary sources, and we prefer secondary. Doug Weller  talk 14:44, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Nope, primary sources are those written by those directly involved in terrorism. In my experience for instance Europol writes better reports than most academics at European universities where the latter, for instance Islamologists, don't seem much interested in studying radicalization and consequently, they were all taken by surprise by the wave of jihadist attacks in Europe in the post 2014 time span. Just the fact that the number of attacks is here used to quantify the threat of terrorism is something security agencies do not do, they know better than to equate separatists vandalizing a goverment building with jihadists murdering hundreds in the 2004 Madrid bombings, where both incidents are counted as one attack. It just goes to show this is a poorly understood subject and that there is no justification for banning sources from government agencies. A Thousand Words (talk) 17:46, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 September 2020
I'm asking for the addition of the Turkistan Islamic Party as a terrorist group, as it is officially recognized as such and meets all the requirements. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkistan_Islamic_Party 189.202.186.69 (talk) 14:40, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Dawnseeker2000  14:50, 27 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Already listed in article as East Turkestan Islamic Movement. TFD (talk) 20:17, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Edit request
Could someone who is allowed to edit in ARBPIA area restore this image? Thanks--Watchlonly (talk) 22:26, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Was there a particular reason you reverted this? Is there a reason the edit request shouldn't be implemented? It's not a very  picture (small, very little detail), so I'm not sure it really adds anything, but you gave no actual justification for your revert. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 23:51, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * User talk:Watchlonly--Watchlonly (talk) 00:17, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Not a good picture. All we're seeing is a bunch of people outside a building, resolution is terrible, impossible to verify that it shows what it claims to show,... --RegentsPark (comment) 00:51, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The Dolphinarium in Tel Aviv.JPG
 * How about a picture of the Tel Aviv dolphinarium? It was the scene of the Dolphinarium discotheque massacre suicide bombing. A Thousand Words (talk) 05:16, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The edit was obviously by a non-ECP editor who is now trying to cooperate by using the talk page, but it is really pretty pointless as RegentsPark has pointed out. Doug Weller  talk 10:09, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That picture of the memorial is repeated in too many articles. If... and that is a big if, a picture is added in that section, maybe this one is better (it's an actual image after the attack, not just a memorial, and it's not present anywhere in Wikipedia).--Watchlonly (talk) 10:29, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://web.archive.org/web/20140704100303/http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/target/etc/modern.html. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. MER-C 10:32, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I fixed it with proper paraphrasing, reordering, and summarizing.--Artemis Seeker (talk) 06:22, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Should we use ISIL? ISIS? or Daesh?
Would be nice to have a standard acronym of this important terrorist group for the article. ISIL is used in the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant article. But a Google search of "ISIL Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" vs. "ISIS Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" finds ISIS is about 10X as popular as ISIL, and 20X as popular as Daesh, which is not so well known in English language sources. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 00:27, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Opening sentence of lead
The present opening (definitional) sentence is " Islamic terrorism (also Islamist terrorism or radical Islamic terrorism) refers to terrorist acts committed by Islamists who have a religious motivation".

This definition is a huge improvement on what was here only a month ago, but it is still flawed in being both tautologous and vague IMO. The ONLY areas of this subject area in which I would claim much expertise is in 'watching' quite a number of European Islamic terrorist articles. Therefore I am bringing the subject here in order to invite input.

I don't have any problem with the sentence up to "refers to terrorist acts" BUT "committed by Islamists who have a religious motivation" has a number of problems. 1) We usually define terrorist acts according to the ideology or motive of the perpetrator/group, NOT who the perpetrtor is (ie Islamism not Islamists) and the second half of the sentence "Islamists who have a religious motivation" is both tautologous ''(tautologous since ALL Islamists have a religious motivation/justification for everything they do. Whatever Islamism is, it is a rejection of the seperation between the religious and secular worlds in favour of a - usually very literalist/fundamentalist - interpretation of Islam ruling all aspects of life and morality) … and vague (what religious motivation? The reinstatement of the Dalai Lama? The banning of contraception?). The definition only works for those who already know what Islamic terrorism'' is and what its ideology/objectives are.

An additional detail is that the present definition fails to encompass the many 'sympathy' acts - which - especially in the case of European lone wolf incidents - are probably the majority of incidents and which are perpetrated "in sympathy with other Muslims" or with Islamist groups, (such as A-Q and IS) but where the perpetrator themselves could not possibly be described as having ANY ideology, including Islamist.

I'm going to try to come up with a clearer opening, but am posting here with my reasons. Input welcome, as is any 'pre-existing' definition which addresses these problems. Pincrete (talk) 11:55, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The issue I see is source(s). Your definition may make more sense but where does it come from? Your own reasoning? That's problematic in wikipedia. Perhaps the solution is to have a section or subsection of different definitions from different sources, such as is or was found in the Islamism article. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 15:33, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree about sources, but firstly, we are entitled to summarise the body, secondly a definition which simply doesn't define - which is so vague as to be almost meaningless - is not much of a definition. I have seen 'official' definitions which simply spoke of unspecified "religious motivation" - what does that tell anyone? It could mean terrorism advancing Druidism! Pincrete (talk) 17:54, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry to say disagree with you the opening line is clearly sourced the main Islamic groups Al-Qaeda, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and the Taliban  and any attack or suicide bombing by these groups are clearly religious motivated .One can argue about the other groups whether they carry out attacks due political leaning or religious motivation like the Irish Republican Army ie whether it is due to Irish nationalism or Religious  motivation but in these cases it is clear.Restore lead if there is consensus please change it.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:16, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You aren't disagreeing with me, since I have never said, nor thought that there is not religious motivation to this kind of terrorism. I'm simply saying that the statement is so vague as to be almost meaningless. This is especially the case when preceded by the term 'Islamism', since Islamism by very definition is motivated by religion (actually of course a particular interpretation of Islam, not religion in general as the present text implies). The present definition is like saying "Right-wing terrorism is terrorism perpetrated by right-wingers which is politically motivated" - this is simply restating the obvious without even attempting any clarification of what the motives or beliefs are. Pincrete (talk) 22:05, 15 July 2021 (UTC)


 * ... or acts perpetrated in sympathy with such groups and aims.
 * Pincrete, you indicated that this refers to "lone wolf" attacks by religiously ignorant. It sound like a good addition, but do you have any kind of source for it? --Louis P. Boog (talk) 00:30, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Would emphasise there is a difference between ideology and motivation: for example the majority of islamist acts of terror are perpetrated against other muslims. Likewise, if we look at academic works such as by Abrahms then we can see that terrorist “motivations” are complicated and counterintuitive, and arguably often not religious. Obviously this gets very complex and is difficult to neatly summarise in an opening paragraph, my view is that we should simply omit motivation from the intro as it is practically impossible to concisely cover it without leaving it open for dispute Personally my preferences would be to simply remove the part about motivation. John wiki: If you have a problem, don't mess with my puppy... 00:41, 16 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Louis P. Boog, the "acts perpetrated in sympathy with such groups" is largely based on my knowing the individual cases of lone-wolf attacks in Europe, where expressions of sympathy with (rather than actual involvement with) 'known groups' is common. There may well be a source summarising these trends, but I don't know them, so there is a degree of WP:OR in my comment. There is a specific UK intelligence internal analysis (leaked) which notes that UK perps are rarely from staunchly religious backgrounds and more often 'converts' or from 'lapsed' backgrounds than having religion as a stable part of their upbringing.


 * John wiki, I was using ideology/motivation in the most obvious meaning of CLAIMED objective - ostensible reason - as this is probably the only viable basis to refer to the subject … ie, why THEY say they do these things. If this were the IRA the motivation would be the nationalistic objective of a united Ireland free from UK control. I don't see how one can avoid ideology/motivation as a key defining feature, although I recognise that the motivation my be less 'concrete' than 'nationalist' groups like the IRA - or for that matter PLO. Pincrete (talk) 18:14, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Personally, I would prefer the replacement of the term "Islamist" with the term "Muslim". This will make the definition less of a tautology. Nxavar (talk) 09:58, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

POV issue: No image of attacks
Checking for images that give visual evidence for Islamic terrorism I only found an image that showed photos of victims. In contrast, the article of terrorism is full of pictures of destruction resulting from acts of terror. I am including the description of those who are not state-perpetrated: United Airlines Flight 175 hits the South Tower of the World Trade Center during the September 11 attacks of 2001 in New York City

Attack at the Bologna railway station on August 2, 1980 by the neo-fascist group Nuclei Armati Rivoluzionari. With 85 deaths, it is the deadliest massacre in the history of Italy as a Republic.

Aftermath of the 2002 bomb attack at the Myyrmanni shopping mall in Myyrmäki, Vantaa, Finland. The bombing was especially shocking for Finland and the other Nordic countries, where bombings are extremely rare.

The Beslan school siege by Chechen rebels on September 1, 2004. It was the deadliest massacre in the history of Russia in the 21st century.

Aftermath of the King David Hotel bombing by the Zionist militant group Irgun, July 1946

A view of damage to the U.S. Embassy in the aftermath of the 1983 Beirut bombing caused by Islamic Jihad Organization and Hezbollah

Islamabad Marriott Hotel bombing. Some 35,000 Pakistanis have died from terrorist attacks in recent years

Dawabsheh family home after Duma arson attack

The Wall Street bombing at noon on September 16, 1920 killed thirty-eight people and injured several hundred. The perpetrators were never caught. Is there some self-censorship going on? For starters we can copy here all images from the "Terrorism" article that are about Islamic terrorism. Nxavar (talk) 09:50, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't believe there has been a deliberate effort to suppress images here. More likely it didn't occur to anyone (me for example) that more images were needed. If you want to add some images, and they are relevant to the event described, why would anyone object? ~Anachronist (talk) 23:33, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Like most articles that describe many individual events, the best image is a composite: American Civil War, Russo-Japanese War. I suggest we make one from the above list. Are you technically able to create that composite? DenverCoder9 (talk) 00:43, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 September 2021
Add the following under 'Oceania':

New Zealand
On Friday, September 3, 2021, a Tamil Muslim named Ahamed Aathil Mohamed Samsudeen committed a terrorist attack by stabbing multiple people in Auckland, New Zealand. 203.96.84.1 (talk) 15:55, 5 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. The section is already overlong and bloated, and this was a relatively small scale attack. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:41, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This seems like a reasonable request and doesn't need consensus, just adherence to policy. In particular we have WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENT, so it would be best to wait and see what coverage there is. If this has received more significant coverage outside of New Zealand than Al Jazeera, I would be in favor of including it. That said, the Al Jazeera source is quite good, particularly in describing how this attack resulted in a change in legislation to close a loophole that would have allowed this attacker to remain detained rather than be released. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:30, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Cite error
There is an undefined refname in the Martyrdom/Istishhad section. It was introduced by this edit but never defined.

Both instances of the following:  

should be replaced with;  

Thanks ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 11:30, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:01, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 15:33, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Proposed split and merge into List of Islamist terrorist attacks
This article has grown to an indigestible length and complexity due to the age-old issue on Wikipedia of the discussion of the subject itself being confused with the need to add endless illustrative examples of the subject - in this case, an exhaustive list of terroristic acts. I propose a split whereby all of the material currently listed under Islamic terrorism be split off, condensed and merged into List of Islamist terrorist attacks. By my rough estimate, this would shave about a third of the article off and leave the remaining 200,000 bytes with a much better chance of being shaped up into something half readable. As it stands, the country-by-country examples listed out ad nauseum on this thematic page add little benefit. Thoughts? Iskandar323 (talk) 21:14, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree. TFD (talk) 22:08, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * A list would require the creation of numerous small articles I suppose. A better alternative would be to create "per continent" Islamist terrorist attacks articles. Nxavar (talk) 08:24, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Terrorist attacks in Nigeria
slamic terrorism (also Islamist terrorism or radical Islamic terrorism) refers to terrorist acts with religious motivations carried out by fundamentalist militant Islamists and Islamic extremists.[1][2][3]

The 4th october 2021 attacks against Nigeria, Owerri in 2001 were carried out by the Islamist terrorist group al-Qaeda Incidents and fatalities from Islamic terrorism have been concentrated in eight Muslim-majority countries (Afghanistan, Egypt, Iraq, Libya, Nigeria, Pakistan, Somalia, and Syria),[4] while four Islamic extremist groups (Islamic State, Boko Haram, the Taliban, anddeaths from terrorism in 2015.

Since at least the 1990s, these terrorist incidents have occurred on a global scale, affecting not only Muslim-majority countries in Africa and Asia, but also Russia, Australia, Canada, Israel, India, the United States, China, Philippines, Thailand and countries within Europe.[Note 1] Such attacks have targeted both Muslims and non-Muslims with one study finding 80% of terrorist victims to be Christians.[10][11] In a number of the worst-affected Muslim-majority regions, these terrorists have been met by armed, independent resistance groups,[12] state actors and their proxies, and elsewhere by condemnation by prominent Islamic figures.[13][14][15]

Justifications given for attacks on civilians by Islamic extremist groups come from extreme interpretations of the Quran,[3] the hadith,[16][17] and sharia law.[3] These include retribution by armed jihad for the perceived injustices of unbelievers against Muslims;[18] the belief that the killing of many self-proclaimed Muslims is required because they have violated Islamic law and are disbelievers (takfir);[19] the overriding necessity of restoring and purifying Islam by establishing sharia law, especially by restoring the Caliphate as a pan-Islamic state (especially ISIS);[20] the glory and heavenly rewards of martyrdom;[17] the supremacy of Islam over all other religions.[Note 2]

The use of the phrase "Islamic terrorism" is disputed. In Western political speech, it has variously been called "counter-productive", "highly politicized, intellectually contestable" and "damaging to community relations", by those who disapprove of the characterization 'Islamic'.[23][24][25] Others have condemned the avoidance of the term as an act of "self-deception", "full-blown censorship" and "intellectual dishonesty".

Madonna P141 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.112.50.146 (talk) 23:10, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 September 2022
2405:201:680B:A09D:548B:65DA:409A:4B12 (talk) 20:15, 5 September 2022 (UTC) Militant word should be removed. Terrorists are not militant with a cause but bad people.
 * ❌ most terrorists state that their actions are in support of one cause or another. - Arjayay (talk) 20:20, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

quick clarification
I don't know if this has been brought up, but Muslims do not call these people actual Muslims as they commit acts that are mentioned as disappeasing by many records. IGotHacked12 (talk) 22:10, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2023
Please remove islamic from this. Islam is a very peaceful religion. The people that conduct these attacks are not true muslims but act to hurt the actual muslims. Please, make the world a better place and let’s all come together as brothers and sister 2605:59C8:1C9:C910:8D33:CA6D:319E:844A (talk) 04:56, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: if WP:RS describe these folks as Islamic then we do as well Cannolis (talk) 05:02, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Can't find the words quoted.
In the lead's last paragraph, I cannot find the words "self-deception", "full-blown censorship" and "intellectual dishonesty" in either of the sources.

Also upon examining the second source, Caroline Marcus, does not appear to have recognition or accomplishment in the relevant field. Additionally, the content of both the sources in question appears to contain extremely biased or inflammatory language, which may not meet the standard for reliable and neutral sources. 39.41.141.223 (talk) 06:00, 7 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Even if the sources remain, the sentence should be rephrased as follows: 'Others have criticized the avoidance of the term, stating that it may be perceived as a form of self-deception and could impede the ability to have open and honest discussions about the subject. 39.41.141.223 (talk) 06:05, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * More crucially, the Marcus piece is not only irrelevant and undue, but also opinion. It's going. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:56, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually, it appears the John Fund piece is also opinion, and I could see these terms nowhere. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:04, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

"Jihadi terrorism" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jihadi_terrorism&redirect=no Jihadi terrorism] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. GnocchiFan (talk) 16:45, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Additional justification given for attacks on civilians by Islamic extremist groups
In the section that begins "Justifications given for attacks on civilians by Islamic extremist groups," isn't an additional one that such groups regard civilians as fair targets because the members of a given target democratic nation's populace are the ones that chose to vote in a government that supposedly oppresses Muslims (and, thus, these civilians bear ultimate responsibility for their government's actions)? 2605:A000:FFC0:5F:F9BD:9D:B97C:57D4 (talk) 02:48, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe so, but if you can't find a reliable source stating this, we can't include it in the article. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:52, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2024
Please added Hindu terrorism, Hindutva, and Hindu nationalism in the "See also" section of the article. As these are all Hindu fundamentalist idealogy which are noted for anti-Islamic activities. 2409:40E0:1008:D849:A8B6:6253:FAD1:B80C (talk) 12:24, 20 June 2024 (UTC)


 * ✅ TheNuggeteer (talk) 06:38, 29 June 2024 (UTC)