Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks

Archived discussions?

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

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

Can we discuss inclusion criteria?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sydney hostage situation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I try to not let politics steer my editing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Protected edit request on 21 December 2014

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Protected edit request on 22 December 2014

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

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

Reorganize article?

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

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

Opening up the criteria question

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copycat Crime

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

2014 Nantes Attack

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

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

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

Islamic Attacks

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

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

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

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

early 70ies Attacks

what about this ones?

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

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

move to List of Islamist terrorist attacks

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

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

Requested move 26 March 2015

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

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

---

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

References

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I cannot see what the problem should be.

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

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

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

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

John Allen Muhammad DC Sniper case

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

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