Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks

Requested move 2 September 2023

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: The consensus is mixed, with some users in favour of changing "Islamist" to "Islamic," others proposing the addition of "extremist," and some opposing the change. The key points of contention include the precision of terminology and whether "Islamic" or "Islamist" better describes the content and intent of the list. While there is no clear-cut consensus, it is evident that there is a desire for neutrality and precision in the terminology used. The consensus is far from unanimous. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:44, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

---

List of Islamist terrorist attacks → List of Islamic terrorist attacks – The term "Islamist" is a POV term and should be replaced with a more neutral term such as "Islamic". TarnishedPath^talk 10:34, 2 September 2023 (UTC)— Relisting. estar8806 (talk) ★ 02:35, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

• Question: Could you explain what you see as the difference in meaning between "Islamist" and "Islamic" and why you think that the former is more POV than the latter? Thanks. NightHeron (talk) 11:38, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

The issue as I see is that according Google the definition of Islamist is "an advocate or supporter of Islamic fundamentalism; a person who advocates increasing the influence of Islamic law in politics and society", which is a loaded term. Whereas Islamic simply means pertaining to Islam. TarnishedPath^talk 05:29, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Google is clearly confused: the reason why its examples require 'radical' or 'hardline' to be placed in front of "Islamism" is because the term does not imply that strong emphasis. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:28, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Dictionary.com gives "a supporter or advocate of Islamic fundamentalism" for Islamist. TarnishedPath^talk 10:40, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

I doubt we can assume that most Wikipedia readers know this distinction between the words ‘’Islamic’’ and ‘’Islamist’’. Do most know that, technically, non-fundamentalist Muslims are not Islamist?

According to WP:MTAU: Strive to make each part of every article as understandable as possible to the widest audience of readers who are likely to be interested in that material. The title should not assume that the reader knows a rather oscure distinction such as between ‘’Islamic’’ and “Islamist’’. NightHeron (talk) 11:15, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm with you on trying to make language accessible as far as possible. I gave the definitions to answer your query. From a technical point of view the average punter would probably think of them interchangeably unfortunately, so from a technical point of view I don't think it makes a difference. One however does have a more POV meaning from my perspective and that was the logic for my move request. See also @Rreagan007's argument below which is another potentially good reason for a move. @Buidhe also suggested an alternative which I'm not opposed to. TarnishedPath^talk 11:31, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

I too have no objection to Buidhe’s suggestion of ‘’Islamic extremist attacks’’. If we adopt that suggestion, it would then be a good idea to change other article and list titles to avoid implying a connection between terrorism and religiosity. For example, Jewish religious terrorism should then be Jewish extremist attacks. AFAIK there’s no evidence that most terrorists were known as particularly religious (whether Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Hindu, etc.). NightHeron (talk) 11:56, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Between the two words attacks (suggested by Buidhe) and terrorism (as in current titles), I would favor ‘’attacks’’ for lists and ‘’terrorism’’ for articles, because articles cover other aspects such as the history of organizations that have sponsored terrorism, whereas lists include only attacks. NightHeron (talk) 12:47, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. TarnishedPath^talk 00:45, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: One could argue the exact opposite, i.e.: "Islamic" is a POV term, and that "Islamist" is correct in properly referring to political Islam or Islamism, of which terror attacks are a function, being extremist political violence. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:29, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
• Strong oppose per this consensus. — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:18, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
• Comment There is Islamic terrorism which says aka Islamist terrorism so there seems to be some confusion around. Not sure that I like either one, maybe it needs extremist/m in there somewhere as in Islamic extremism (aka Islamist extremism, duh). Is there any analysis of which terms are preferred in serious sources? Selfstudier (talk) 14:40, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Inserting "extremist" makes it clear that there's no suggestion that Islam supports terrorism, only that an unrepresentative extremist faction does, just as is the case in other religions where extremists have resorted to terrorism. NightHeron (talk) 16:02, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't see why we need to throw in extra words and use different adjectives just because it's Islam-related. When Christians are involved it's just Christian terrorism and everyone seems fine with that. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:12, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

If we change the title to include the word extremist along with "Islamic" or "Islamist", which I think would be a good idea, we should additionally change Christian terrorism to Christian extremist terrorism and Jewish religious terrorism to Jewish extremist terrorism or something similar, for the same reason. Terrorism is not religious, at least not in the commonly accepted meaning of the word religious. NightHeron (talk) 16:44, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree with @NightHeron. We should change it everywhere not just here. --BeLucky (talk) 12:30, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

@Kashmiri How about @NightHeron's proposal !? --BeLucky (talk) 06:59, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

@BeLucky, see @NightHeron's comment at the bellow. They have started a discussion at talk:Jewish religious terrorism for that page. TarnishedPath^talk 11:18, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath Yes. I have shown Support there. Thanks for info anyways. --BeLucky (talk) 11:20, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

@BeLucky, I only just noticed after I left my last message. Be well. TarnishedPath^talk 11:24, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose What I would support is the remove of any entry that doesn't explicitly mention 'Islamist'. Islamist is very specific term, and if this list is to remain it needs very specific inclusion criteria. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:15, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
• I think the word terrorist should be avoided in wikivoice due to strong connotations and vagueness of definition (academics cannot agree, either.) So I think the list should be renamed: List of Islamic extremist attacks. (t · c) buidhe 22:46, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Buidhe, I'm not opposed to that suggestion. Either List of Islamic extremist attacks or List of Islamic extremist incidents would work. TarnishedPath^talk 05:33, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

  The issue you arrive at if you actually attempt to pursue precision here is that Islamic extremism, Islamic fundamentalism and Jihadism can be defined as slightly different religious and political ideologies. The list presumably conflates all of these, in addition to muddling itself by including other acts of political violence instigated for other motives, but also conducted by groups broadly construed as Islamist. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:49, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

  Yes the list is problematic. There seems to have been a presumption by editors past that acts committed in certain geographical locations, by persons of specific nationalities or any violent act involving Muslims can be massaged to fit their narrative. In short WP:OR. As far as precision goes I wouldn't consider jihadism to be of much use given it is a mere neologism. TarnishedPath^talk 10:07, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME. "Islamic terrorist" is much more common than "Islamist terrorist" based on the Google Ngrams. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:06, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

  That Ngrams is hardly decisive alone, and the distinction narrows to almost nothing if you add "attack", for the full phrase; in addition, this does not address any of the other concerns. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:41, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

• Comment Fwiw, the BBC news style guide says-

"Islamic/Islamist

Islamic simply describes the religion, the equivalent of Christian, Hindu or Jewish - so we might talk about "Islamic texts".

The term Islamist has come to refer to those who derive a political course from Islam. It should not be used as a noun to imply violence. As an adjective, we might use it to describe "Islamist militants", "extreme Islamists" or "radical Islamist groups" - but equally "Islamist politician" or "Islamist country". However, we should not jump to the conclusion individuals are motivated by "Islamist extremism" etc unless we have reason to do so." Selfstudier (talk) 08:40, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

• SupportList of Islamic extremist attacks per Buidhe.Selfstudier (talk) 12:17, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Support: List of Islamic extremist attacks too - as both slightly more all-encompassing, as this list already is: dragging in radical Islamists, Islamic fundamentalists, Jihadists etc.; and also more neutral, per MOS:TERRORIST, which is doubly appropriate for sweeping and poorly sourced content aggregations such as this. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:17, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support: List of Islamic extremist attacks per Buidhe. NightHeron (talk) 17:31, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
• Comment: I started a move request from Jewish religious terrorism to Jewish extremist terrorism on that article's talk-page, see [1]. (The proposed title is currently a redirect.) NightHeron (talk) 18:19, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

@NightHeron @Buidhe @Selfstudier We need to consider this aspect also: Both religious terrorism and extremist terrorism involve the use of violence for ideological purposes, the key distinction lies in the primary motivation and targets. Religious terrorism is driven by religious beliefs and often targets those perceived as threats to those beliefs, while extremist terrorism can be rooted in various ideologies and may have a broader range of targets. It's important to note that not all religious individuals or extremist groups engage in terrorism, and the majority of religious and extremist movements are non-violent. --BeLucky (talk) 06:30, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean. There is no contradiction between being religious and extremist. Perhaps you mean terrorism motivated by religious and secular motives (but is there a clear cut distinction in every case?) (t · c) buidhe 06:34, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Religious terrorism and extremist terrorism are two distinct but related concepts within the broader category of terrorism. While they share some common characteristics, they also have important differences:

1. Motivation:
   • Religious Terrorism: This type of terrorism is driven primarily by religious beliefs and ideologies. Perpetrators believe that their actions are justified or even mandated by their interpretation of religious texts or doctrines. Religious terrorists often see themselves as defending or advancing their faith.
   • Extremist Terrorism: Extremist terrorism is more ideologically driven and may not necessarily be rooted in religion. Extremist groups can have a variety of motivations, including political, social, economic, or cultural ideologies. Religion may or may not play a central role in their extremist beliefs.
2. Targets:
   • Religious Terrorism: The primary targets of religious terrorism are often individuals or groups who are perceived as a threat to the religious beliefs of the terrorists. This can include people of other faiths, religious minorities, or even members of their own religious community who are seen as deviating from the "true" faith.
   • Extremist Terrorism: Extremist terrorism can target a wider range of entities, including governments, political institutions, military forces, and civilian populations. The focus is often on advancing the extremist group's broader ideological goals.
3. Examples:
   • Religious Terrorism: Groups like Al-Qaeda and ISIS are well-known examples of religious terrorist organizations. They have used violence to advance their interpretation of Islam and establish Islamic states.
   • Extremist Terrorism: Groups like the Irish Republican Army (IRA), Basque Homeland and Liberty (ETA), and the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) are examples of extremist organizations with varied motivations, including nationalist, separatist, and environmentalist ideologies.
4. Global vs. Local:
   • Religious Terrorism: Religious terrorist groups often have global ambitions and seek to spread their ideology or establish a transnational caliphate, which can lead to attacks on a global scale.
   • Extremist Terrorism: Extremist groups may primarily focus on local or regional issues, although some can also become international threats if their ideologies resonate with a broader audience.
5. Recruitment and Radicalization:
   • Religious Terrorism: Recruitment in religious terrorism often involves religious indoctrination and radicalization within religious communities or online spaces where extremist interpretations of religious texts are propagated.
   • Extremist Terrorism: Extremist groups may employ a range of recruitment strategies, which can include exploiting grievances related to political, social, or economic issues, as well as online radicalization.

--BeLucky (talk) 06:37, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

There isn't an obvious distinction, and religious terrorism is a problematic term though throws us several issues, which is why its page has a section dedicated to criticism of the concept. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:49, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Not all individuals who hold extreme beliefs engage in terrorism, and the vast majority of people who practice a religion or hold extreme views do not support or engage in violence. Terrorism should not be equated with any particular religion or ideology, as it is a tactic employed by a small subset of extremists within various belief systems. --BeLucky (talk) 06:41, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

None of what you write is a reason not to adopt the title Islamic extremist terrorism. Logically, that title means that we’re talking about the extremists who resort to terrorism and have some motivation connected to their version of Islam. NightHeron (talk) 10:59, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

@NightHeron I am just explaining the terms for any confusion. See my conclusion: "tactic employed by a small subset of extremists within various belief systems". So it's a upvote explanation for the move to new name as suggested. --BeLucky (talk) 12:01, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

My explanation is in response to the the earlier confusion of @Selfstudier 14:40, 2 September 2023 (UTC) . --BeLucky (talk) 12:10, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. NightHeron (talk) 12:13, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

@Selfstudier's earlier Comment:

There is Islamic terrorism which says aka Islamist terrorism so there seems to be some confusion around. Not sure that I like either one, maybe it needs extremist/m in there somewhere as in Islamic extremism (aka Islamist extremism, duh). Is there any analysis of which terms are preferred in serious sources? --BeLucky (talk) 13:20, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

These comments appear to be an extension of the same comments started at Jewish religious terrorism. This should have been linked for clarity given the cross-posting of similar points. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:52, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Oppose the move to Islamic terrorist attacks, but I would be in favour of a move to Islamic extremist attacks.--Scootertop (talk) 18:29, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Support, mainly just because I personally use the latter form more often in speech. I have little to add regarding the nuance between the two, but the neutrality reasoning sounds good to me. However, as the topic is regarding neutrality, how should the obviously very un-neutral use of the word "terrorist" be treated? Certainly, one could argue it is the common use in the western world, but at what point does that outweigh neutrality? Inanimatecarbonrobin (talk) 06:44, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

@Inanimatecarbonrobin that's why a few people have suggested List of Islamic extremist attacks alternatively. A suggestion which I'm not opposed to. TarnishedPath^talk 07:09, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

• Weak oppose. Doesn't seem like it makes much of a difference. Islamist would seem to fit it better, but I think your suggestion should be added as a redirect. Professor Penguino (talk) 04:39, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  Oppose “Islamist” implies acts from groups claiming to act under the influence and direction of their interpretation of Islam. “Islamic” merely describes their religious orientation.Mistamystery (talk) 16:34, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Describing these attacks as Islamic rather than Islamist seems very loaded. PatGallacher (talk) 15:03, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  @PatGallacher: Did you mean support? Something's mixed up. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:10, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

  You are right, edited my comments. PatGallacher (talk) 16:11, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per PatGallacher.  — Amakuru (talk) 00:00, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

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

Re add "2001 Indian parliament attack"

Here are the sources stating that the perpetrators of the "2001 Indian Parliament attack" belong to Islamic terrorist organizations:

https://www.tribuneindia.com/2001/20011217/main1.htm

https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/en/doc/2003-08/31/content_259902.htm

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/10/world/asia/india-executes-man-tied-to-2001-attack-on-parliament.html

Not sure how such an old proven addition can be removed citing "no sources provided" when a simple search will lead you to sources.

Editors should also add the "2001 Jammu and Kashmir legislative assembly car bombing"

Source: https://www.tribuneindia.com/2001/20011002/main1.htm Cherioc (talk) 21:36, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

@Cherioc, sorry I didn't see the words Islamic terrorist or Islamist terrorist once in any of those sources. Justifying entries with those sources would be WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. The closest phrasing I found was "Islamic militants" which is not the same thing. TarnishedPath^talk 02:46, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

"Delhi Police Commissioner Ajay Raj Sharma said the entire operation was carried out by the militant outfit Jaish-e-Mohammad with the help of another militant outfit Lakshar-e-Toiba." Wikipedia itself sources that these organizations are Islamist organizations. These organizations are globally designated Islamist terror orgs. Articles report on news and don't usually mention common knowledge, which Lakshar-e-Toiba and Jaish-e-Mohammad Wikipedia pages already mention.

Anyway, Since you are adamant that both the word "Islamist" and "the attack itself" should be in the same source, here you go:

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Lashkar-e-Taiba

"Lashkar-e-Taiba, (Urdu: “Army of the Pure”) also spelled Lashkar-e-Tayyiba or Lashkar-e-Toiba, Islamist militant group, begun in Pakistan in the late 1980s as a militant wing of Markaz-ud-Dawa-wal-Irshad, an Islamist organization influenced by the Wahhābī sect of Sunni Islam."

"On December 13 that year, Lashkar-e-Taiba undertook a suicide attack on India’s parliament complex in the capital, New Delhi, in conjunction with Jaish-e-Mohammed, another militant group"

Sources for 2001 Jammu and Kashmir legislative assembly car bombing:

https://edition.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/south/10/01/india.kashmir/index.html

https://cisac.fsi.stanford.edu/mappingmilitants/profiles/jaish-e-mohammed

"Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM) is an extremist Islamist group", "In October 2001, the group bombed the legislative assembly building" Cherioc (talk) 09:01, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

The main problem is that the attackers' motives are unknown, since all the five have been killed during the incident. Consequently, we don't know whether they were motivated by Islamic extremism or, for instance, their act was a part of Kashmiri independence struggle. Enmity towards India, a country with 20% Muslim population and a Muslim president, is per se not an element of radical Islamism as much as it is motivated politically. — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:02, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

"is per se not an element of radical Islamism as much as it is motivated politically." Nice goal post shift yet wrong.

It was narrated that Thawban, the freed slave of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ), said: "The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: 'There are two groups of my Ummah whom Allah will free from the Fire: The group that invades India (تَغْزُو الْهِنْدَ, taghzoo al-hind), and the group that will be with 'Isa bin Maryam, peace be upon him.' Sunan an-Nasa'i 1:25:3177 (hasan) from The Book of Jihad.

It was narrated that Abu Hurairah said: "The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) promised us that we would invade India (غَزْوَةَ الْهِنْدِ, ghazwa al-hind). If I live to see that, I will sacrifice myself and my wealth. If I am killed, I will be one of the best of the martyrs, and if I come back, I will be Abu Hurairah Al-Muharrar." Al-Muharrar: The one freed (from the Fire). Sunan an-Nasa'i 1:25:3175 Cherioc (talk) 14:15, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

The words "Islamist" or "Islamic" and "terrorist" need to appear in the same article in relation to the same people accused of the attacks and it needs to be from a credible person making the claim. TarnishedPath^talk 11:03, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Link to this policy? Drsmoo (talk) 11:08, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Have a good long read. There are tags at the top of the article about them. TarnishedPath^talk 11:12, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

You misunderstand WP:SYNTH Drsmoo (talk) 11:21, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

If you think I'm wrong why don't you raise this at WP:OR/N and test if I'm wrong or you're wrong? TarnishedPath^talk 11:33, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Also WP:RS. TarnishedPath^talk 11:13, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

https://www.history.com/topics/21st-century/9-11-attacks

This is the only source listed for 9/11 attacks. No where do we see a credible person making the claim that the terrorists were Islamist. Kindly remove the 9/11 attacks from the list. Cherioc (talk) 14:29, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

This section is dedicated to discussing the 2001 Indian Parliament attack, sorry. — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:32, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

"Jaish-e-Mohammad (The Army of Muhammad)" and "Lashkar-e-Toiba" (UN designated Islamist terrorist organizations): We take responsibility for the attack on Indian parliament.

Wikipedia mods TarnishedPath & kashmīrī : No you didn't do it and you are not Islamist. Cherioc (talk) 14:43, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Sources need to be explicit. Saying 'everyone knows that they are terrorists because x agency or body has designated them terrorists' is not good enough. The citation used actually has to say it. TarnishedPath^talk 02:58, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

The argument that (the very exact terms) "islamist" and "terrorism" need to appear in the same article is simplistic and misleading. RS can use a large variety of ways to present that info e.g.: "jihadists" and "terrorism" or they can state that attackers were jihadis who targeted civilians, minorities or civil infrastructure like schools, markets, etc (you see this in articles about ISIS and ISIS-K for example, islamist/salafist terrorist organizations blowing up Shia mosques is still terrorism even if you can't read the terrorists' minds to show everybody what they were thinking in those moments). - Also, when discussing the same event: if some RSs identify an attacker as an islamist/jihadi while other RSs identify their actions as terrorism it can be just as valid. A lot of wikipedia articles gather details from multiple sources to paint a more accurate picture about events and their authors (you shouldn't be expected to pick everything up from just one place). Mcrt007 (talk) 23:27, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Please read WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. TarnishedPath^talk 02:53, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Ps, per Meriam-Webster a Jihadist is "a Muslim who advocates or participates in a jihad". The word terrorism is not used once in that definition. The word Jihad is. Jihad is defined as "a holy war waged on behalf of Islam as a religious duty". Again, not one use of the word terrorism. Jihad may potentially involve terrorism, but it may also not. TarnishedPath^talk 03:04, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH editing

@Drsmoo, I've reverted your edit because it was WP:SYNTH. Your first source, Who is Hamas, did not specifically name Operation Al-Aqsa Flood. Your second source, Hamas Leaves Trail of Terror in Israel did not use the word "Islamist" or "Islamic" together with word "terrorism" once. In fact "islam-" or any variation of it was not in the article. You were editing and asking readers to do A + B = C. Please do not edit to re-insert WP:SYNTH as this article already has enough problems with WP:OR and WP:SYNTH that me and other editors have been slowly working to address. TarnishedPath^talk 11:11, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

So according to you, an ordination described as Islamist by reliable sources, committing an attack described as a terrorist attack by reliable sources, can not be included? Is it your contention that Islamist and terror attack must be in the same sentence? Do you have any other made up rules that are not documented anywhere? Drsmoo (talk) 11:19, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I just quoted you the policies above. Have a read. In one of your articles Operation Al-Aqsa Flood wasn't motioned by name. In the other article it wasn't mentioned that terrorists carrying out terrorism attacks were islamic.

You were taking two articles to synthesise a conclusion Article 1 + Article 2 = conclusion. Neither article by itself could support what you were editing. Please go ready WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Just in case you've missed the title of this article it's called "List of Islamist terrorist attacks". All attacks listed need to be confirmed to be carried out by "Islamic terrorists" or "Islamist terrorists" in each source used. Combining sources to come to that conclusion isn't acceptable per Wikipedia policy. TarnishedPath^talk 11:30, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Multiple sources describing the event as "Islamist terrorist" would seem to be a prerequisite, else one is combining statements from different sources to make a conclusion not in the individual sources ie synth. Selfstudier (talk) 11:31, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Just one WP:RS that said the specific attack was carried out by an "Islamist terrorist" or "Islamic terrorist" I'd accept. I think asking for more is a bit much. Combining sources when one can't support an edit is WP:SYNTH. The only reason to include multiple sources is because you are making a few claims or for a few perspectives (when stuff is contentious, not because you need multiple sources to support a single claim. TarnishedPath^talk 11:38, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Additionally:

This source, https://abcnews.go.com/amp/International/timeline-surprise-rocket-attack-hamas-israel/story?id=103816006, refers to the militants as Islamist “Israel pounded Hamas targets in Gaza and said the bodies of 1,500 Islamist militants were found in southern towns recaptured by the army in grueling battles near the Palestinian enclave.”

And as a terrorist attack “At least 14 Americans have been killed in the terrorist attacks” Drsmoo (talk) 11:36, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

"Islamic terrorist" or "Islamist terrorist" not mentioned once. The closest it gets is "Israeli soldiers remove the body of a compatriot, killed during an attack by the Palestinian militants, in Kfar Aza, south of Israel bordering Gaza Strip, on Oct.10, 2023. Israel pounded Hamas targets in Gaza and said the bodies of 1,500 Islamist militants were found in southern towns recaptured by the army in grueling battles near the Palestinian enclave", so that's obviously talking about IDF operations in Gaza. sorry making any more off that is WP:OR. TarnishedPath^talk 11:43, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

You are making up new rules as you go now. Drsmoo (talk) 11:55, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I've quoted the rules I'm relying on. TarnishedPath^talk 11:59, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

It sounds like an RFC will be needed if there is no consensus. You are clearly misunderstanding Synth and OR however. Drsmoo (talk) 12:05, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

@Drsmoo: You will have hard time to convince editors here that the struggle for Palestinian independence is motivated by religious extremism. — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:50, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Not interested in your opinions, nor in “convincing” anyone. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. If your ones biases cause you them to edit against reliable sourcing you they are not fit to edit in this topic. Drsmoo (talk) 11:54, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

@Drsmoo your bosses? I suggest you strike that before you find yourself on a noticeboard. TarnishedPath^talk 11:58, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

It was a typo for biases and already fixed before your edit. Drsmoo (talk) 12:01, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

@Drsmoo WP:AGF. I advise you to strike that comment. TarnishedPath^talk 12:04, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Kashmiri was confused and thoughts Wikipedia was about convincing editors. Wikipedia is about reliable sources. I will change your to one’s to make this more clear. Drsmoo (talk) 12:06, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Pinging @Tamzin, can I get you attention here please in light of previous warnings. TarnishedPath^talk 12:33, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I’m confused what you’re upset about tarnished path. There was no personal attack. Drsmoo (talk) 12:38, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Upset? More personal attacks? TarnishedPath^talk 12:42, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I’ll rephrase… what do you object to in my post? I will rephrase to make it unobjectionable. Drsmoo (talk) 13:00, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

This isn't Twitter of Facebook. I suggest you revaluate your communication very fast. TarnishedPath^talk 13:09, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, currently on leave from adminship. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:04, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

@Drsmoo: Let me remind you that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a summary of daily press clippings. Marginal and fringe views are not normally included, even if an editor manages to finds them printed somewhere in mainstream media (which, mind you, rarely have NPOV policies as we do). Read Wikipedia:UNDUE. — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:22, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is solely based on reliable sources Drsmoo (talk) 14:37, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Just jumping in here. New to this article. There is a clear delineation between Islamist and non-Islamist militant groups in Palestine. Always has been. I’m not sure what the debate is.

I would imagine the larger issue (given recent discourse) is the use of the word “terrorist” , but I don’t see that topic active here (yet) Mistamystery (talk) 16:38, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

@Mistamystery, for an attack to be included in this list per Wikipedia policies (WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:SYNTH) the sources used need to mention that the person/s or group which were associated with the attack were "Islamic terrorist/s" or "Islamist terrorist/s" and they need to do it explicitly within one source. Wikipedia policy forbids taking a synthesise of sources and combining them in a logical fashion to derive a conclusion, even if it is extremely evident and everyone knows in their bones that organisation x is a terrorist organisation because everyone law enforcement agency on the planet has listed them as such. Does that make sense? TarnishedPath^talk 01:16, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Some sources:

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/world-reacts-surprise-attack-by-hamas-israel-2023-10-07/ - “The Palestinian Islamist group Hamas launched the biggest attack on Israel in years on Saturday.”

https://amp.dw.com/en/hamas-attacks-on-israel-triggers-debate-in-germany/a-67047140 - “In the wake of the terrorist attack by Islamist militant Hamas on Israeli soldiers and civilians, Muslim associations in Germany have come under pressure to position themselves clearly.”

https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/67038989.amp - “Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said the country is "at war" after an attack by Islamist group Hamas.”

https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2023/10/14/faced-with-hamas-s-attack-on-israel-europe-s-left-is-divided_6171706_4.html - “Since Saturday, October 7, the left in several European countries has reacted in disarray to Hamas' attack on Israel. While some unreservedly condemned the Islamist group's offensive and the massacres committed by its fighters, others have pointed to the responsibility of the Jewish state. “ Drsmoo (talk) 03:14, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

None of the articles you've linked there specifically name which the attack (Operation Al-Aqsa Flood) and the BBC one doesn't use the word "terrorist" at all. You wouldn't be able to justify the entry that you used before which was "Islamist militants of Hamas launched a large scale coordinated massacre against Israeli civilians they called Operation Al-Aqsa Flood." with any of those. You'd be able to justify something else but I'd suggest you bring it here to obtain consensus. TarnishedPath^talk 03:51, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Do you have any alternate suggestions? Drsmoo (talk) 03:58, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

We can avoid synth by using multiple sentences. One sentence for terrorist attack by Islamist militants, and another for massacre of civilians, each independently cited. Drsmoo (talk) 04:04, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Please try and remember the name of this article "List of Islamist terrorist attacks" not "List of Islamist militant attacks". TarnishedPath^talk 04:36, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

If is described as a terrorist attack by an Islamist group in the DW article. At this point it’s not clear what your objection is, but I think an RFC will be needed.Drsmoo (talk) 07:32, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I think you're reading meaning into my words that I don't mean to be there. I made my previous comment because you use the word militant a lot, which for our purposes is irrelevant. If a source says something is a terrorist attack, fine we can look at them and see what else they say. TarnishedPath^talk 09:00, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, makes total sense. Main emerging issues here are:

1. There seems to be a major shift around the usage of the word “terrorist” and “terrorism” in general - with a re-focusing on militancy, asymmetrical warfare, and focus on civilian targeting. This new debate should find its place on the terrorism parent article, and won’t be surprised if it finds itself here as well.

2. The article seems to ignore Islamic militant groups in Palestine, which I’m confused about, given that there is a very clear delineation as to which groups are Islamist and which aren’t (i.e. PFLP). Unless there is un-balanced blocking of inclusion of those groups and their attacks, they should find themselves on the list (which seems to be blocked at the moment?)

Mistamystery (talk) 15:07, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Remove 9/11 attacks from the list

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

---

https://www.history.com/topics/21st-century/9-11-attacks

This is the only source listed for 9/11 attacks. No where do we see a credible person making the claim that the terrorists were Islamist. Kindly remove the 9/11 attacks from the list. (Refer to 'Re add 2001 Parliament attack' for context)

The main problem is that the attackers' motives are unknown, since all the hijackers have died. Consequently, we don't know whether they were motivated by Islamic extremism as they all died. Cherioc (talk) 14:47, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

The 9/11 attacks have been claimed by Al Kaida, and we are fairly certain of its aims and motivation, as well as those of its leadership. — kashmīrī ^TALK 15:15, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

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

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2023

Add: Israel- Hamas terrorist attack. 1300 + massacred on October 07th 2023 2A02:C7C:DAF9:8700:F871:7663:5444:A7A (talk) 23:43, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 00:19, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

This needs to be included, 1,400 civilians murdered in cold blood, mutilated, raped and murdered. 2600:4040:95F8:4C00:D806:AAA8:E937:8156 (talk) 18:54, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Should Operation Al-Aqsa Flood by Hamas included in the list of Islamist Terrorist attacks?

Should Operation Al-Aqsa Flood by Hamas be included in the list of Islamist Terrorist attacks? Drsmoo (talk) 07:49, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Survey

• Comment Do you have any WP:RS that specifically mention Operation Al-Aqsa Flood by name in the article and also state that the attack was carried out by Hamas and also state that Hamas is a Islamic terrorist or Islamist terrorist organisation? TarnishedPath^talk 08:54, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
• Comment: That really depends on how the WP:RS have been labelling it. I think the question here is whether or not the operation has been described as a terrorist attack. From what I have seen, this operation has more often than not been described as an attack in the conventional sense of armed conflict; however, that's anecdotal, and I haven't examined the sources in the article. Actualcpscm ^{scrutinize, talk} 10:14, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

  Some sources:

  • https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/world-reacts-surprise-attack-by-hamas-israel-2023-10-07/ - “The Palestinian Islamist group Hamas launched the biggest attack on Israel in years on Saturday.”
  • https://amp.dw.com/en/hamas-attacks-on-israel-triggers-debate-in-germany/a-67047140 - “In the wake of the terrorist attack by Islamist militant Hamas on Israeli soldiers and civilians, Muslim associations in Germany have come under pressure to position themselves clearly.”
  • https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/67038989.amp - “Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said the country is "at war" after an attack by Islamist group Hamas.”
  • https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2023/10/14/faced-with-hamas-s-attack-on-israel-europe-s-left-is-divided_6171706_4.html - “Since Saturday, October 7, the left in several European countries has reacted in disarray to Hamas' attack on Israel. While some unreservedly condemned the Islamist group's offensive and the massacres committed by its fighters, others have pointed to the responsibility of the Jewish state.”

  Drsmoo (talk) 14:30, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

  Not one of those sources has the words "Operation Al-Aqsa Flood" in them. How can you use them to establish that any particularly organisation launched an attack called "Operation Al-Aqsa Flood"? Also the BBC article doesn't have the word "terrorist" in it either. TarnishedPath^talk 14:35, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

• Yes (summoned by bot). The DW article cited above seems unequivocal in calling it a terror attack by an Islamist group, so it seems to meet the list criteria. That Hamas’s name for the attack doesn’t appear in that DW article doesn’t disqualify the event from being within the list’s scope. We don’t have to call the list entry “Operation Al-Aqsa Flood”. Most list entries don’t get “official” names. Equally, if we do want to give the event that name, it’s not SYNTH to cite that attribute to another source that is clearly talking about the same event. I’m not sure this needed an RfC - seems more of a WP:3O situation. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 19:18, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
• OPPOSE None of the sources provided is sufficient for the specific text proposed to be inserted without introducing further WP:OR into this article. Me and other editors have worked for an extended period of time to address WP:OR in this article without having further issues introduced. TarnishedPath^talk 22:16, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
• Yes. The Reuters and DW sources provided by Drsmoo show that this is generally considered an Islamist terrorist attack. More sources that identify it as such would be good, but these two are sufficient for verification. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:21, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Strong NO, this is a war and not whatever ISIS was doing Abo Yemen✉ 17:31, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

• Comment Further to my opposition vote above, there is not consensus in WP:RS about the attacks being terrorist attacks:

The Conversation calls it an "operation" repeatedly.

South China Morning Post calls it an "assault" throughout their article.

Al Jazeera calls it an operation in the title of their article titled "There is nothing surprising about Hamas’s operation" and cynically puts the words "“unprovoked” and “terrorist” in quotation marks, making sure to impart that these are the words of "diplomats and political leaders from the West". Terrorist is never used in the article voice.

The Guardian's title is "Israel-Hamas war escalates – in pictures".

The BBC This is the source provided by Drsmoo, not once is the word terrorist or terrorism used and the title is "Israel: "We are at war" says PM following Hamas rocket attacks". Throughout the article the operation is referred to as attack/s.

NBC News The word attack is used through the article and the only time "terrorists" is used is when quoting Joe Biden. Terrorists is never used in the article voice.

The Guardian called it an offensive. The word "terrorists" is only used once when quoting some random. Terrorists is never used in the article voice.

We should not be adding in this operation when WP:RS disagree. TarnishedPath^talk 08:35, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

• Indeed, a number of sources calls this "an operation". Yes, sure, that was a terrorist operation. Should the Hamas militants be described as a "military force"? Yes, possibly. But the military forces, and especially special forces, can be easily involved in terrorism, which is defined as an action to incite fear to civilian population. My very best wishes (talk) 20:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

  Not one of the sources I provided categorised the operation in such manner. TarnishedPath^talk 23:21, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

  • The Guardian,[2][3] The Conversation[4][5] and NBC News[6][7][8] all use the term "terrorism" in some of their later coverage (cf. WP:RSBREAKING: "it is better to wait a day or two", etc.).
  • A quick search suggests that Reuters, the source of the SCMP piece that you cite, is one of the outlets that avoids on principle using the term "terrorism" in its own voice (like BBC). BilledMammal has correctly suggested that [if] it is their policy to not name any event a terrorist attack... [then] their failure to do so here is not indicative [of whether it is or isn't one].[9]
  • As for Al Jazeera - it is owned by the Qatary state, which is one of the main benefactors of Hamas and the people of Gaza.[10] Given the questions that have been raised about AJ's editorial independence (you can see in the lead), I don't think we should rely on it for this.
  • Regarding conflicting sources, see WP:WEIGHT. François Robere (talk) 23:22, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

    Refer to WP:RS/P for the single source of truth as fair as consensus goes. If you don't like it then raise RfCs at WP:RSN to contest what consensus has previously determined. TarnishedPath^talk 02:31, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

    Your argument about WP:WEIGHT doesn't hold unless you can show where there has been consensus drawn as demonstrated at WP:RS/P which says your preferred sources are better than others preferred sources. That is that other people's preferred sources have additional considerations and aren't green. TarnishedPath^talk 11:17, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

• No: It was clearly a military operation of significant scope - unprecedented scope, in fact, hence it's wide-ranging impacts. That some of these impacts could individually be characterized as terroristic does not make the operation as a whole terroristic in nature. This is WP:COMMONSENSE. The sourcing is also not there. Moreover, the list isn't just about terrorist attacks, but Islamist ones, and this attack involved groups unified by Palestinian nationalism. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:47, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
• Comment This RFC asking whether it should be included in the List of major terrorist incidents seems relevant as it covers much of the same ground (some of the same editors involved) Selfstudier (talk) 11:43, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
• No this was a military operation. M.Bitton (talk) 12:54, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes Hamas is an Islamist group with Islamist goals. Pretty unambiguous imo. Mistamystery (talk) 05:04, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, that was the most important Islamist terrorist attack since 911, and it was described as such by vast majority of sources.

RS quotes

"Wie sind die Terroristen vorgegangen?" ("How did the terrorists do it?") - Süddeutsche Zeitung "Shock Hamas terror attack" - France 24 "a campaign of terror" - Foreign Affairs "The Hamas terrorist offensive" - CNBC "Hamas' bloody terror attack" - CBS "a campaign of terror" - Politico "massacre of civilians by Hamas terrorists" - NYT "Hamas terrorist attacks" - USA Today "massacre of Israelis at the hands of Hamas terrorists" - ITV "terrorists in Gaza", "terror attacks" - PBS "a terror attack" - CNN "Hamas terrorist attack" - The Telegraph "terror attacks on Israel by Hamas" - DW "24 hours of terror", "terror on wings", "terrorists" - The Guardian "a terrorist organization", "terrorist attacks" - Yascha Mounk at The Globe and Mail

the attack has been equated with the September 11 attacks,[11][12][13] and the sheer number of victims makes it the biggest such attack anywhere in the world since 2014 or 2015.

The sources are unanimous in stating that Hamas is: a violent, militant organization that has taken control of the Gaza Strip by force from the internationally recognized Palestinian Authority.[14][15][16][17][18][19]

It was also a raid, rather than invasion, in terms of military tactics, but the purpose of the raid was to terrorize the civilian population, by attacking specifically the civilian population. Yes, we now have a war, but this war was started by the major terrorist attack (Operation Al-Aqsa Flood under discussion) conducted by Hamas and other terrorist forces.

This seems to be a duplicate RfC - see here. My very best wishes (talk) 20:08, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

• No: Firstly, numerous reliable sources have refused to describe "Operation al-Aqsa Storm" as a "terrorist" attack. This line of propagandistic talking point is coming only from the Israeli state and pro-Israel news-outlets in the West. Arab League countries, Latin American countries, African countries, China, Russia, Brazil, etc. have refused to label the operation as a "terrorist" attack.

Secondly, deadly military campaigns that pursued genocidal, extermination policies and perpetrated some of the worst terrorist acts, and massacres, like Nazi Germany's Operation Barbarossa havent been listed in wikipedia as "terrorist incidents".

Thirdly, labelling "Operation al-Aqsa Flood" as "terrorism" contradicts basic facts and would be original research. This operation is a major military campaign which is ongoing and it was launched through air, land and sea. The soldiers who participated in this operation also captured new territories and held them for a few days. This is WARFARE.

Fourthly, multiple Palestinian paramilitary groups have joined forces with Hamas in this operation. These include left-wing and nationalist militant groups.

Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 21:19, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

• You cite NBC in arguing that calling this a "terrorist attack" would be OR, but NBC's own coverage does that. François Robere (talk) 22:20, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

  None of those articles you linked labelled the whole operation as a "terrorist attack". That's your original research.

  "Land, air and sea: Video analysis shows how Hamas coordinated huge Israel attack" (BBC News, October 2023) Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 04:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, of course. This is obviously a terrorist attack, as I've explained in this RfC discussion (parts of which have been quoted above by MVBW). As for whether the attack was motivated by an Islamist interpretation of Islam, I defer you to our own article, to scholarly sources (Knudsen, 2005; Hroub, 2006; Milton-Edwards & Farrell, 2010, and others), and to virtually every major media outlet that reported on it. François Robere (talk) 22:11, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

  an Islamist interpretation of Islam I never heard of such a thing. what is it? M.Bitton (talk) 22:14, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

  See Islamism. François Robere (talk) 22:21, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

  I know what Islamism is, but what I want to know is the relation between Islamism and the right of self-defence (this is what the attack is all about). M.Bitton (talk) 22:24, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

  Sources? François Robere (talk) 22:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

  Sources for what? That the Palestinians get urinated upon on daily basis? M.Bitton (talk) 22:30, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

  @François Robere, this list is about "Islamist terrorist attacks". If something can't be categorised as an "Islamist terrorist attacks" it doesn't belong in this list and any attempts to insert it in this list are WP:OR. TarnishedPath^talk 23:14, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

• No WAPO:How Hamas’s carefully planned Israel attack devolved into a chaotic rampage cites Meir Ben Shabbat, a former Israeli national security adviser, "Those who attacked Israel are not terrorist squads, but a commando brigade belonging to a large army, numbering in the tens of thousands, built over time with funds intended for humanitarian causes,” said Meir Ben Shabbat, a former Israeli national security adviser, adding that some of the militants carried “data files on the territories and settlements they raided." seems to confirm primarily a military operation. I repeat what I have said previously, if one asks whether the music festival should be in the list, I can agree, but not with a well planned op that killed a lot of soldiers and captured others, among other things.Selfstudier (talk) 22:55, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
  • @Selfstudier:, I think the quote was inadvertently taken out of context. The way I read it is as Ben Shabbat saying is that the attackers were much better prepared than your "average" terrorist squad; elsewhere, he compared the attack to 9/11 and identified the perpetrators as "Hamas terrorists".[20] François Robere (talk) 23:40, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

    Regardless of what Ben Shabbat writes, it's an opinion piece, so not an WP:RS. TarnishedPath^talk 23:44, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

    In the one you've quoted. TarnishedPath^talk 23:45, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

    Besides which with talk like "The political echelon should instruct the IDF to immediately create a 300-meter wide security zone on the Gazan side running the length of the border and declare that any Palestinian that enters this zone is placing his life at risk." he really paints himself as an WP:FRINGE extremist. TarnishedPath^talk 23:48, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

    I have no doubts about his sympathies, still he should qualify as some sort of an expert in these matters and "Those who attacked Israel are not terrorist squads, but a commando brigade belonging to a large army.." seems clear enough to me. Selfstudier (talk) 08:34, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

    Those comments were in regards to the article François provided as it is an opinion piece by Shabbat. The article you quoted is different as it a news article in The Washington Post and only quotes Shabbat as an expert. Your quote is good. The opinion piece provided by François is not when it comes to matters of fact, for obvious reasons such as WP:RSEDITORIAL. TarnishedPath^talk 09:00, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

• NO. The attack was certainly not driven by Islamism but by political and military considerations. The civilian victims were collateral damage, in American speak; of the same type as the victims of the Sabra and Shatila massacre, the Kunduz hospital airstrike, or the reciprocal Israeli attack on Gaza, none of which is called a terrorist act by Wikipedia. — kashmīrī ^TALK 23:01, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

  To say it more clearly: what Hamas (and Israel) has committed are war crimes, not acts of terrorism. Israel itself calling it a war, it is the laws of war (the Geneva Conventions) that apply to the conflict, not criminal laws. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:09, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

  The civilians were not collateral damage. They were actively targeted and kidnapped...

  Entering civilian homes and murdering them inside their houses is not collateral damage, where did you bring this from? Bar Harel (talk) 22:23, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

• No I don't think that "terrorist attack" is a sufficient way to conceptualize what happened. And while the Palestinians do happen to be mostly Muslims, there's no evidence that this attack was motivated by Islamism. The attack was for political reasons, not religious reasons. Philomathes2357 (talk) 04:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
  1. @Philomathes2357: this is about the nature of a specific organization, not of the Palestinians in general. "Hamas" (حماس) is the Arabic acronym for Islamic Resistance Movement (حركة المقاومة الإسلامية). It was created as an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, and one of its initial goals - later codified in its charter - was the complete destruction of Israel. It is widely seen as a violent Islamist organization[21][22][23][24][25][26] responsible for dozens of terrorist attacks, which is why it is designated a "terrorist organization" by US, EU, Canada, Australia, Japan, and others.
  2. "Operation Al-Aqsa Flood" was named in reference to Al-Aqsa Mosque, which Hamas (falsely) claimed was being desecrated by Israelis:[27][28] "The Israeli occupation forces have escalated their raids into the Al-Aqsa Mosque, desecrating the Muslim sacred sites and repeatedly attacking worshippers... Meanwhile, the Israeli occupation banned the Palestinian citizens from accessing the Al-Aqsa Mosque and allowed Israeli colonial settlers to defile the Muslim sacred site... They also insulted our Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) inside the Al-Aqsa compound, tore up the Quran, and brought dogs into the Muslim sacred site... The Israeli occupation has desecrated the Al-Aqsa Mosque, from which the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) ascended to heaven on the al-Isra wa al-Mi’raj journey".[29][30] In a speech given on the day of the attack, Ismail Haniyeh, the political leader of Hamas, said that "the time has come to finish the battle for Al Aqsa";[31] Mohammed Deif, the military leader of Hamas, made a similar connection.[32] Whatever else Hamas had intended to achieve in this attack, it is clearly underpinned by an Islamist interpretation of Islam.
  3. @Kashmiri: With respect to target selection, civilians were not "collateral damage" but one of the main targets. Kydd & Walter (2006) define "terrorism" as "the use of violence against civilians by nonstate actors to attain political goals" (incidentally, they mention Hamas in the same sentence as Al-Qaeda and the Tamil Tigers). Here we have a non-state actor that intentionally attacks 23 targets that are purely civilian, and only five that are purely military;[33] that instructs its "fighters", sent to rural farming communities, to "kill as many people as possible";[34][35] that has special code words for events like "killing all hostages", "using human shields", and "setting houses on fire";[36] that massacres at close range hundreds of unarmed party goers,[37][38] entire families,[39] and even pets;[40] that takes hostage mothers with their babies,[41] hiding youth[42] and disabled elderly;[43] and that - to add insult to murder - then posts a record of all this to social media.[44][45][46][47] And then of course, there's the >3,000 rockets (Hamas claims >5,000) launched indiscriminately at towns and cities in Israel's heartland, including Tel Aviv and Rishon LeZion, and now - ironically - at Jerusalem.[48][49][50][51]
  4. So this ticks all the boxes for "terrorism" in general and "Islamist terrorism" in particular, which is why it was termed as such by at least 15-20 media outlets (see above) and over 40 governments,[52] as well as transnational organization like the EU,[53][54] UN[55][56][57][58] and NATO.[59] If WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT are of any importance around here, then it's pretty clear what we should do. François Robere (talk) 10:48, 17 October 2023 (UTC) (Added source quotes 11:45, 18 October 2023 (UTC))

     @François Robere, I remind you of MOS:TERRORIST and WP:NOTFORUM. This really isn't the place for these sorts of rants and some of your accusations are highly contentious and inflammatory. TarnishedPath^talk 11:23, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

     Yes, so only a minority of countries have designated Hamas as a terrorist organization, and many also view it as a resistance organisation; Al-Aqsa, FYI, is also a Palestinian nationalist symbol to the Palestinian people as much as it a religious one, though yes, just two days prior, it was stormed once again by Israeli settlers - hence the desecration angle; massacres also happens in wars, this is a war and the operation was an military operation in a war; and so finally, no, it does not tick the boxes, any of them. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:25, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

     Iskandar323, The Temple Mount is the holiest site in Judaism. Referring to Jews visiting as “desecration” is profoundly disturbing language that has no place on Wikipedia. When you write “desecration” are you giving your own views, or just stating Hamas’ views? Drsmoo (talk) 11:54, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

     @Drsmoo, please don't WP:STRAWMAN other editors. TarnishedPath^talk 11:45, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

     @Drsmoo, thank you for striking your comment, but do you really feel it was appropriate to try and entrap another editor with the gotya question you added on when you struck your comment? TarnishedPath^talk 12:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

     Im asking Iskandar323 to clarify what he meant. Drsmoo (talk) 12:10, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

     What Iskander wrote is obviously in reference to a previous comment by Francois Robere (which Hamas (falsely) claimed was being desecrated by Israel). The falsely (added to "claimed") on the other hand is clearly Robere's opinion. M.Bitton (talk) 12:19, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

     That would be a fact, not an opinion. People may disagree, but if they believe Jews are desecrating the Temple Mount they are both bigoted and wrong. Drsmoo (talk) 12:27, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

     That's just another opinion that we can add to the list. M.Bitton (talk) 12:36, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

     @Drsmoo Please strike your comments. There's no place for this here. TarnishedPath^talk 12:54, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

     Try stay on topic, Drsmoo. Selfstudier (talk) 12:08, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

     @François Robere: Even if we accept Kydd and Walter's narrow definition (even though our terrorism article focuses on broader definitions), it may be challenging to consider Hamas a non-state actor while they are a democratically elected government. Agreed that Palestine as a state does not enjoy widespread recognition, and Gaza and its current authorities is an additional question mark. This is all discussed in International recognition of the State of Palestine. However, we can safely assume that Hamas runs a quasi-state, has international relations (e.g., with Egypt and Lebanon), and can be safely classified as a state actor. — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:36, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

     I think this conversation is going to have a clear result: Wikipedia should label this event as neither a "terrorist attack" nor as something motivated by "Islamism". I haven't seen any compelling arguments for the use of either one of those labels, so there's no reason to entertain the idea of adding it to the "list of Islamist terrorist attacks". Philomathes2357 (talk) 22:48, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Oh no, François Robere was right on all points, and he provided a lot of supporting references. To put this simple, the attack was committed by Hamas, which is an openly Islamist organization (this is right in the name of the organization), and it was recognized as a terrorist organization in many countries. This alone justifies placing this attack to the list. But there was also a specific modus operandi during the attack, i.e. specifically targeting civilians and executing them on spot. And most importantly, it was described as a terrorist attack in RS. My very best wishes (talk) 16:15, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Islamist organization (this is right in the name of the organization) I assume you mean Islamic Resistance Movement. Notice the two words there, Islamic not Islamist and Resistance. Selfstudier (talk) 17:50, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Wordplay aside, we already describe Hamas as "Islamist", as do a plethora of sources, some of which have already been cited. There's also Hamas's main collaborator in this attack, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad ("one of the most extreme and uncompromising Palestinian armed factions... [that] rejects any political peace process and sees a military victory over Israel as the sole means of attaining its objective of establishing an Islamic state across Israel, the West Bank and Gaza"[60]); and the two's sponsor, Iran,[61] whose "Islamic Revolutionary Guard" is reported to have assisted in the planning of the attack.[62] I think it is safe to say that the more well-known organizations that were involved in this attack have Islamist ideologies. François Robere (talk) 19:33, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

It is not just wordplay, there is a move discussion (nocon) up the page about just that, and where I cited the BBC style guide:

"The term Islamist has come to refer to those who derive a political course from Islam. It should not be used as a noun to imply violence....."

"Islamic Jihad", "Islamic Revolutionary Guard", "Islamic Resistance Movement", no "Islamist" to be seen.

Of course I can appreciate some would like to tag this label on to all and sundry so as to imply violence in much the same way as is done with the terrorist tag. Selfstudier (talk) 22:41, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

[Hamas]... was recognized as a terrorist organization in many countries. So is Israeli army (across the Middle East), Russian army (in Ukraine), Iranian Revolutionary Guards (in USA), and so on. But national legislation of some country or countries doesn't decide who is and who isn't branded as "terrorist" on Wikipedia. We have our own definition, our own policies (MOS:TERRORISM or WP:NPOV for instance), our own discussions, and primarily we seek consensus. For now, there is no consensus whatsoever that the incident was anything more than an armed attack against an occupying power. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:49, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

No, Russian army was not officially recognized as a terrorist organization, in Ukraine or elsewhere. Only Wagner group possibly was. Israel Defense forces? By what countries? I do not see it our List of designated terrorist groups. Iranian Revolutionary Guards - yes, sure, it was. Same would apply to similar attacks by this organization. My very best wishes (talk) 16:36, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, of course. On a single day, 1,400 Israelis, with three-quarters of them being civilians, fell victim to a massacre orchestrated by Hamas, an Islamist organization. Hamas' ideology goes beyond mere nationalism, as it is deeply rooted in radical Islamist beliefs. This incident serves as a textbook example of an Islamist terrorist attack and, as others have shown, has been described as such by multiple WP:RS. LUC995 (talk) 17:05, 17 October 2023 (UTC)— LUC995 (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Tombah (talk · contribs). TarnishedPath^talk 23:35, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
• I suggest this RfC should follow the decision at Talk:List_of_major_terrorist_incidents#RfC:_including_"Operation_Al-Aqsa_Flood"_in_the_list_of_major_terrorist_incidents?, when that is decided. It would make little sense for this article to reach a different conclusion than that article. Bondegezou (talk) 17:17, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

  It is more complicated than that. That RFC is on calling it terrorism, but this list calls for it to be dubbed, specifically "Islamism terrorism", which is yet a further degree of categorization. But yes, if that RFC delivers a no, well, then this discussion is already overruled by a community, not local consensus. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:08, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Bondegezou why? That article is not a portal or a noticeboard. Why should an RfC there be community wide binding when the RfC there asks if the event belongs in that list which has different scope from this? if the lists had the same scope we should be talking about a WP:MERGE of them. TarnishedPath^talk 20:24, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

• Strong No: Not only is not there reliable sources backing this claim, but also this incident lacks the elements of the so-called "Islamist-terrorism". Also, I see TarnishedPath's sources enough for saying that the reliable sources are not saying such a thing. In conclusion I wonder if this RFC is based any real disputes between the users. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:39, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
• No: no RS backing this claim. Yes, according to most RS it's a terrorist attack but although this terrorist attack is done by groups following an Islamist ideology their motives aren't Islamist per se but primarily Palestinian nationalist (like any liberation movement using violence to reach their goals). a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 19:18, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

  Are their motives part of the list inclusion criteria? If it’s a terrorist attack done by an Islamist group, that seems to tick all the boxes. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 20:22, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

  What inclusion criteria? What boxes? Selfstudier (talk) 22:46, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

  WP:LSC. What do you think the selection criteria are for this list article? It looks to me as though the title gives us two adjectives: Islamist, and terror. Inclusion should be based on whether an attack meets those criteria. Was it by Islamists? Was it a terror attack? Then it should be included. This isn’t List of terror attacks motivated by Islamism. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 07:09, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

  A title is not inclusion criteria. One of the problems with this article, leading to the tags at the top, is that these are not stated and defined at the outset, resulting in people making up their own definition. Selfstudier (talk) 10:45, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

  Agree. It would be a sensible exercise (probably in a new talk section) to come to consensus on criteria as a first step. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:54, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

  Note: 2023 Israel–Hamas war doesn't mention "islamist" even once (except in a ref to the Arras school stabbing) and Operation Al-Aqsa Flood only mentions the adjective to describe Hamas' ideology (conducted by the Palestinian Islamist militant group Hamas). These pages haven't been categorized in Category:Islamic terrorism. If there are RS describing the events as an Islamist attack it would be good to first add them on these articles. And then to reach consensus on the scope of this list. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 11:21, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

  Neither do 2023 Khar bombing, The Satanic Verses / Salman Rushdie, Murder of Kanhaiya Lal and 2021 Kabul airport attack, nor 1985–86 Paris attacks, 1998 United States embassy bombings, 2002 Bali bombings and 2012 Makhachkala attack. And then there are those entries that don't even have an article, for which we have to rely on an attached source: the October 16 Belgium attack, September 9 Mali attack, September 30 Afghanistan attack and August 30 Egypt attack; none of these make that statement, yet they're all on the list. Should we start clearing them out? François Robere (talk) 14:24, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

  @François Robere: I'll assume good faith from you but what you said is obviously wrong, for instance:

  • 2002 Bali bombings: the article says: In April 2003, Indonesian authorities charged Abu Bakar Bashir (also rendered "Ba'asyir"), the alleged spiritual leader of Jemaah Islamiyah, with treason. It was alleged that he tried to overthrow the government and establish an Islamic state. => This is clearly an Islamist motive. (and there's "Militant Islamism in Southeast Asia" at the bottom).
  • Murder of Kanhaiya Lal: murdered by two Islamic terrorists [...] In what seems to be a second video (taken after the attack), they boasted about the murder to avenge the insult to Islam and in the infobox Attack type Murder, Islamic terrorism and it's in the category Category:Islamic terrorism in India
  • 1985–86 Paris attacks: in the infobox Attack type Bombings, Islamic terrorism and Part of Iran–Iraq War, terrorism in France and Islamic terrorism in Europe In the text: {{tq|Iran's involvement led to some to describe the attacks as having a dimension of Shia Islamic terrorism. [...] During the court case he proclaimed his motivation for the attacks as being "a fighter advocating for the Islamic cause." and in the categories: Category:Islamic terrorism in Paris

  So let's first find reliable secondary sources that Operation Al-Aqsa Flood as an Islamist terrorist attack and let's add them to the Operation Al-Aqsa Flood article. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 08:43, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

  As you should.

  The goalposts keep moving throughout the discussion. In your previous message you said that [The article] doesn't mention "islamist" even once, and Selfstudier made the distinction Islamic not Islamist; with one exception, none of these articles actually mention "Islamism"! The exception - the articles about the 2002 Bali bombings - relies on a government source (Australian police), and we already know Shadowwarrior8 rejects Israeli state and pro-Israel news-outlets, so I didn't bother with those to begin with (you'll notice that of the >60 sources that I already provided, only one is from Israel, and that was in reply to Selfstudier). If you're okay with Israeli sources (as you should be), and you're okay with deducing an "Islamist" motive from an "Islamic" statement (again, as you should be), then: a) I can find you any number of Israeli sources that call this "terrorism", or deem Hamas an "Islamic" or "Islamist" organization;[63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75] and b) you should be content with everything that's already been provided (eg. this from Hamas itself). But yes, if you so wish, I will add it to the main first. François Robere (talk) 10:30, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

  Hi @François Robere. I agree that it's a terrorist attack (see here). The current debate is only about the motive (Islamist or not) of the terrorists.

  you're okay with deducing an "Islamist" motive from an "Islamic" statement: no, this is WP:OR. We need reliable secondary sources that explicitly say that the events were an Islamist attack.

  you should be content with everything that's already been provided: I'm not, for instance this is a primary source, not a secondary source. We need to rely on reliable secondary sources only. You sent dozens of links, but for instance 63 doesn't include the word "islam" and 64 seems to be WP:SELFPUBLISH (an opinion/editorial).

  In any case, neither Operation Al-Aqsa Flood nor 2023 Israel–Hamas war contain RS claiming that this terrorist attack was an Islamist one. (I don't say that it's not an Islamist attack, my personal opinion doesn't matter, I just say that RS I consulted don't agree on this point.) a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 15:07, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

@A455bcd9: Thanks for clarifying. You write that We need reliable secondary sources and Hamas's own statements aren't such, so why are you content with perpetrators' own video (for the Murder of Kanhaiya Lal) and court admissions (for the 1985–86 Paris attacks)? Or maybe you're okay with a quote, you just want it to published by a secondary source?[76][77][78][79][80]

We need reliable secondary sources that explicitly say that the events were an Islamist attack. And again, none of those articles actually uses the term "Islamist". In fact, I only found one source among all of those cited that does so in its own voice (the Le Monde article for the October 13 attack). Also:

• "violent Palestinian Islamist terrorist attack on Israel"[81]
• "Islamist terror attack"[82]
• "massive assault on Israel by the Palestinian Islamist terror group Hamas"[83]

etc. etc. François Robere (talk) 16:12, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

• violent Palestinian Islamist terrorist attack on Israel: it's a good quote, but I'm afraid it's not RS per WP:SELFPUBLISH. Khanin is the Head of the BESA program and it's posted on BESA's website...
• Islamist terror attack: same issue, good quote but probably not RS as it's in the "Opinion" section.
• massive assault on Israel by the Palestinian Islamist terror group Hamas: the source is RS and of course Hamas is an Islamist group, but I don't think this quote is enough to prove their religious motivations (per Islamic terrorism).

a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 16:24, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Please also see my comment below. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 16:33, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

• No. We are talking about the entire operation, which includes war and other acts, not just those events that were terrorist in nature or how Hamas can be characterised. CurryCity (talk) 05:07, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

• Yes. It may be called a war now, but the events of the day were a terrorist attack conducted almost entirely against civilians with the perpetrators recorded yelling Allah 'akbar as they committed atrocities. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 17:03, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
• Yes. Terrorist attack perpetrated by Islamist group. Loksmythe (talk) 21:45, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

  almost entirely against civilians About a quarter of those killed were soldiers and police. Selfstudier (talk) 17:11, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

  So it's nearly identical to the civilian death ratio for the Israeli military.[84] How should we then call a force whose 70% of victims are non-combatants? — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:10, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

• Yes the main purpose of the attack was to kill and kidnap civilians and the operation appears to have no strategic military value other than killing and kidnaping civilians. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:47, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

To further my point, we have stand-alone articles for Re'im music festival massacre, Netiv HaAsara massacre, Be'eri massacre, Ein HaShlosha massacre, Holit massacre, Kfar Aza massacre, Kissufim massacre, Nahal Oz massacre, and Nir Oz massacre, all occurring on October 7 as part of Operation Al-Aqsa Flood. These could each be listed separately, but probably makes sense to bundle them into one entry, a la September 11. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:13, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

@Jweiss11: I agree that it was a terrorist attack, which is the point of this other debate. But here the question is whether it was an Islamist terrorist attack. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 08:36, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Given that Hamas is an Islamist organization, safe to say yes. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:08, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

• Yes of course, per Thebiguglyalien, My very best wishes, François Robere, Jweiss11 and others. Plus, if that was not a terrorist attack, what could ever qualify as one?? Gawaon (talk) 11:33, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

• Yes There are reliable sources cited by other users in this discussion that refers to this event as a terrorist attack. The primary argument raised so far by users who opposes the terrorist characterization is that many other reliable sources failed to adopt this characterization, and merely described this event as an "assault", "attack", "war" or even "operation". In my view, the mere fact that many reliable sources omitted to adopt the terrorist characterization doesn't make that characterization false, insofar as that characterization has been used by other reliable sources. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 13:04, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

• Bad RFC but yes. It's not a good idea to fork the discussion, as there is already a discussion about this underway at Talk:List of major terrorist incidents#RfC: including "Operation Al-Aqsa Flood" in the list of major terrorist incidents?. If the article is listed in the main list, it would obviously be listed in the Islamist sublist because Hamas is an Islamist organization. But yes, for the same reasons I wrote in my long vote in the main RFC. Levivich (talk) 19:08, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Levivich, I fail to see how that is automatically the main list. There's also List of terrorist incidents, who's to say that isn't the main list? Who gets to decide what's the main list. Wouldn't we need an RfC to decide that question? Wouldn't it only be RfC's on noticeboards, portals or project pages (e.g. WT:TERRORISM) that would have wiki-wide precedence. Correct me if I'm wrong (with relevant policies). TarnishedPath^talk 03:32, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

  If the article is listed in the main list, it would obviously be listed in the Islamist sublist because Hamas is an Islamist organization., no @Levivich, to be considered Islamist terrorism you need religious motivations and according to RS such as the Foundation for Political Innovation's database of Islamist terrorist attacks in the world 1979-2019: A number of attacks do not appear in our “retained estimate” when religious motivation is not clearly predominant in a combination involving another determination. Islamist terrorism takes place in singular and complex contexts that some- times make it difficult to collect reliable data. This is particularly the case in situations of war, civil or international, independentist or separatist struggles and territorial conflicts that persist over long periods of time, where causalities are shifting or inextricable, as in the case of the Palestinian conflict So it's not automatic and we need to rely on RS, as always. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 09:06, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

  Coming back to what I wrote earlier - I would generally agree, except that sources don't usually paint an attack as Islamist, only its perpetrators. As you know, I sampled a few of the entries in this list and looked at their articles and reference lists (where ones exist), along with the references provided here to justify their inclusion, and in only one instance did I find an explicit, third-party statement of the kind you're asking for (Le Monde, for the October 13 France attack). All other cases seem to have been included for other reasons: some articles and sources use the term "Islamic", but not "Islamist" (1985–86 Paris attacks, 2002 Bali bombings and Murder of Kanhaiya Lal); some rely on perpetrators' admissions (1985–86 Paris attacks, Murder of Kanhaiya Lal and October 16 Belgium attack) or on official government statements (2002 Bali bombings, October 16 Belgium attack, October 13 France attack), but not on secondary sources; and some characterize the perpetrators as "Islamic" or "Islamist" (eg. Islamic State), but not the action (1998 United States embassy bombings, 2012 Makhachkala attack, 2021 Kabul airport attack, 2023 Khar bombing, September 9 Mali attack, September 30 Afghanistan attack and August 30 Egypt attack). If you object to including Al-Aqsa Flood because no secondary source explicitly states that it was "Islamist-motivated", then you should also object to keeping all of the others. Conversely, if you're okay with keeping all of the others, then you should also be okay with keeping Al-Aqsa Flood, because it fulfills the same criteria: it was widely reported as a terrorist attack perpetrated by Islamist organizations, and spokespeople for those organizations admitted religious motivations. François Robere (talk) 09:33, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

  Bingo, per WP:OR you've outlined why this list is in need of significant trimming. That's exactly why it has a template at the top of it saying it has problems with WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. TarnishedPath^talk 10:06, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

  Or, like Barnards and I implied in the #Selection criteria thread, we have a problem with how we're framing this list. François Robere (talk) 10:13, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

  @François Robere, see my response below in that thread. TarnishedPath^talk 10:36, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

  FYI: I've just checked the Fondapol's database of Islamist terror attacks and I could find 1985–86 Paris attacks, 2002 Bali bombings, 1998 United States embassy bombings

  I couldn't find the 2012 Makhachkala attack but they list two other Islamist attacks in Dagestan in 2012 for which we don't have an article: Belidzhi and Chirkey listed in List_of_clashes_in_the_North_Caucasus_in_2012#August.

  Other attacks were too recent to be included in their database. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 10:42, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

  Excuse abbreviations, Loti was created in 2001 and then Lmti in 2003 with this article in 2011. It seems reasonable to assume the first as parent (main list), second as sublist of it and this article also as a sublist of it as it cannot be a sublist of the second because of the word "major" (apparently undefined). Selfstudier (talk) 09:02, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

  I agree with Levivich and François Robere that when we have a clear statement from a RS that what's happening is a terrorist attack from an Islamic terrorist group, the event can be fairly described a Islamist terrorist attack.

  Sure - just because a Islamic terrorist group carries out a terrorist attack doesn't necessarily mean that that terrorist attack stems from Islamist motivations. But, this difference is pedantic. Further, in the context of an attack against a Jewish population, which is squarely the target of Islamic extremist terrorism, the suggestion that this terrorist attack by an Islamic terrorist group is borne from anything other than Islamist motivations is extremely implausible. Surely it is possible that this Islamic terrorist group might be doing it for fun, perhaps out of pure nihilistic hate, or mindless evil. Maybe they are covert scientologists. But there's a difference between what's theoretically possible and what's plausible.

  I appreciate a desire to be rigorous, but not at the expense of common sense.

  Finally, even if we are to proceed along the path of being rigorous, it is not grammatically necessary for the terrorist attack to be religiously motivated, to describe it as an Islamist terrorist attack. The word "islamist" is an adjective, used to describe an attribute to the terrorist attack. The fact that the terrorist attack is carried out by, and under the colours of an Islamist terrorist group, is enough attribute to use the adjective "islamist". HollerithPunchCard (talk) 16:05, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

  "Further, in the context of an attack against a Jewish population, which is squarely the target of Islamic extremist terrorism, the suggestion that this terrorist attack by an Islamic terrorist group is borne from anything other than Islamist motivations is extremely implausible." So it could have nothing at all to do with nationalism or land? Absolutely nothing at all? Those things never instigated conflict ever before? TarnishedPath^talk 00:09, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

  Dictionary.com gives the definition of Islamist as:

  1. supporting or advocating Islamic fundamentalism (adjective)
  2. a supporter or advocate of Islamic fundamentalism (noun)

  Google.com gives the definition of Islamist as:

  1. relating to, advocating, or supporting Islamic fundamentalism. (adjective)
  2. an advocate or supporter of Islamic fundamentalism; a person who advocates increasing the influence of Islamic law in politics and society. (noun)

  The religious component is inescapable. TarnishedPath^talk 00:33, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

  Nationalism or land - yes - under Islam. The desire to gain land or greater political identity or presence does not necessarily detract from the presence of Islamist motivations. They are compatible with the presence of Islamist motivations and in fact, a reasonable means to that very end

  Also, I don't know where you got these definitions of the word "Islamist". Because when I google the definition of "Islamist", it is defined simply as "relating to Islam", which is perfectly simple and makes perfect sense.

  A terrorist attack by an Islamist terrorist group is quintessensially an terrorist attack relating to Islam, albeit the terrorist variant. To deny this, you will have to contend that either Hamas is not a Islamist terrorist group, or that they were not acting in their capacity as a Islamist terrorist group, when carrying out the terrorist attack against Israel. To reiterate, I don't see either scenario possible, and certainly no source suggesting either scenario to be true. But I'm happy to stand corrected if you do manage to produce any such source. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 04:17, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

  I provided the links to my search results so you can see exactly where I got them from. TarnishedPath^talk 04:44, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

  The religious component is inescapable. Exactly. François Robere (talk) 10:40, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

• No at the moment. Having looked over the thread, there's far too much WP:OR of whether it fits a definition of "Islamist terrorist attack + cherry picking of RS describing it thus. For me, there is only one test and that's whether it's WP:DUE per the RS. There's been very little attempt to present that but from what I can glean from the sources presented overall it hasn't reached that threshold. Happy to change if anyone is able to present a survey that indicates otherwise. DeCausa (talk) 09:23, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
• No, as DeCausa says immediately above, sources don't describe it thus, which is the only criteria. Even though they might sometimes describe this event as a terrorist attack, often describe Hamas as 'terrorist' and sometimes say that Hamas is influenced by Islamism, they don't combine those elements. For us to do so would be WP:SYNTH. For context, US is a capitalist country, but not everything it does is capitalist. Israel is essentially a Zionist endeavour, but not everything it does is inherently Zionist. There is insufficient evidence that sources see a mainly 'Islamist' motive or that they mainly see a 'terrorist attack', rather than an act of war. Pincrete (talk) 10:50, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, by simply making Google books search for "islamist terrorist hamas", one can find lots of books (like "Palestinian Religious Terrorism: Hamas and Islamic Jihad"; there are many of them) which say that Hamas is an Islamist terrorist organization. Was not that an attack by Hamas? My very best wishes (talk) 18:42, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

If your argument holds water, it shouldn't be difficult to show that the preponderance of RS have described what happened a couple of weeks ago as a "Islamist terrorist attack". No? DeCausa (talk) 19:27, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Today I learnt that an Islamist terrorist attacking a Jewish population is not an Islamist terrorist attack; that it's original research and synthetical to call an Islamist terrorist attacking a Jewish population as an Islamist terrorist attack.

Apparently this Islamist terrorist group just went on a frolic of their own, pulled off the biggest terrorist attack against a Jewish population since 911, and it has nothing to do with their Islamist terrorism. Probably they are just trying to get some Matzoh ball soup or something in Israel and accidentally set off a bomb.

Sometimes I wonder how is the back not broken yet from all that back-bending. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 01:51, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

@HollerithPunchCard They're an Islamic terrorist group that does humanitarian terror missions. Your claims are not a WP:NPOV. I, for one, believe the massacres are made out of the goodness of their hearts ❤️ Bar Harel (talk) 03:54, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Bar Harel You have shown me the error of my ways. I guess sometimes all it needs is a change in perspective - there can be no terrorism if you understand it for what it truly is - acts of tough love. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 12:42, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

The sarcasm is cheap, unnecessary, simplistic and - seemingly willfully - misrepresents the view I expressed: US is a capitalist country, but not everything it does is capitalist. Israel is essentially a Zionist endeavour, but not everything it does is inherently Zionist - or even inherently "Jewish", despite it universally being described as a Jewish State. In Northern Ireland, the IRA were a mainly Catholic, mainly socialist organisation while those they opposed were mainly Protestant and conservative, yet little done on either side was motivated by religion or L-R politics. We rely on WP:RS saying things explicitly, not WP:SYNTH of semantic arguments. They don't AFAI can see describe this event as 'Islamist' or any synonym. Pincrete (talk) 06:20, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Exactly. TarnishedPath^talk 07:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, terrorist attack by an Islamist terrorist group. Both facts are highly sourced. If you call it WP:SYNTH, please delete the article Jewish extremist terrorism, as I haven't seen many sources state that they were done in the name of Judaism, it's WP:OR. Bar Harel (talk) 03:02, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

According to Mohammed Deif, Hamas Brigades' commander, "...we have decided to put an end to all of this, with the help of Allah", "This is the day that you make this criminal enemy understand that its time is up. [The Quran says:] 'Kill them wherever you may find them.”" [85] Bar Harel (talk) 05:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

From Middle East Media Research Institute: "The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI; officially the Middle East Media and Research Institute) is a nonprofit press monitoring and analysis organization co-founded by former Israeli military intelligence officer Yigal Carmon and Israeli-American political scientist Meyrav Wurmser. Headquartered in Washington, D.C., MEMRI publishes and distributes free English-language translations of Arabic, Persian, Urdu, Pashto, and Turkish media reports.

Critics describe MEMRI as a strongly pro-Israel advocacy group that, despite portraying itself as "independent" and "non-partisan", aims to portray the Arab and Muslim world in a negative light through the production and dissemination of incomplete or inaccurate translations and by selectively translating views of extremists while deemphasizing or ignoring mainstream opinions."

Obviously Wikipedia is not a reliable source but you can go and check the citations used in the article for yourself and the source has been discussed four times at WP:RS/N and it is not a reliable source, it's listed as additional considerations apply at WP:RS/P. I would take those additional considerations to include anytime it reports on its known biases against the Palestinian cause. TarnishedPath^talk 08:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Alright. Which sources do you want? I have the Economist, JP...

He stated it to the world that Hamas does it in the name of Al-Aqsa and as a "righteous mujahideen". Are you trying to deny what Hamas's military leader said when he called on Palestinians all around the world to join his massacre? Bar Harel (talk) 05:34, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

JP article doesn't mention islam once and lets say for argument sake that it did it also has this little pearl "He called for Palestinians to “organize their operations against the settlements and sweep away the occupier,” according to the video posted online at Al-Mayadeen and other sites." Of course Hamas's actions could never have anything to do with nationalism and land could they? That's just too far-fetched right?

Regarding The Economist the quote is “O,our people in all Arab and Islamic countries,” intoned Muhammad Deif, the leader of Hamas’s military wing, in a recorded statement released to coincide with the group’s attack on southern Israel. “…The day has come when anyone who has a gun should take it out. Now is the time. If you do not have a gun, take up your cleaver, hatchet, axe, Molotov cocktail, truck, bulldozer or car”. I certainly don't see anything in there calling up religious justifications and in any case the whole thing reads very much like an opinion piece in which case WP:RSEDITORIAL applies. TarnishedPath^talk 10:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

• Yes As an act of terrorism, justified by reference to islamic dogma by Hamas leaders. WCM_email 14:45, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
• No - for the same reasons specified at Talk:List of major terrorist incidents#RfC: including "Operation Al-Aqsa Flood" in the list of major terrorist incidents? - and why for the love of god do we need two rfcs at the same time for effectively the same question. Couldnt we just wait for that to conclude and have that consensus inform the discussion here? Anyway Re'im music festival massacre should be included, but the overall article covers attacks on straight up military targets as well, and that is not terrorism. So add the sub-articles that are instead. nableezy - 14:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Nableezy, why would consensus there inform consensus here? Some have tried to claim that list is a master list of this list, I fail to see that as a valid claim as no RfC has been had in regards to that question. TarnishedPath^talk 22:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

  Because the question there is if its even appropriate to call the entire thing a terrorist attack. So if that is "no" then this question is pointless here. nableezy - 22:51, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

  I agree it's not appropriate to call it a terrorist attack. I think perhaps the issue is that given this is a question that affects multiple lists/articles then perhaps the discussion should have happened on a project page or noticeboard. TarnishedPath^talk 23:04, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

  Yep, the multiplicity of lists here is a cause for confusion. As for which list is "master", it is a question of whether any are subsets but that may not be the case because of differing inclusion criteria. Selfstudier (talk) 10:47, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Selfstudier precisely. Someone tried to claim that List of major terrorist attacks was the master to this, but the short answer is why? Who decided that? Why not List of terrorist incidents? Why anything? Perhaps we need to sort out some of this confusion with some merge discussions or AfDs. TarnishedPath^talk 11:51, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  sorry I meant List of major terrorist incidents. TarnishedPath^talk 11:52, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

• Yes. Terrorist Attack? Yes. By whom? Hamas officially calls itself: "Islamic Resistance Movement ". So islamic? Yes. Together: Islamist Terrorist Attack. TaBaZzz (talk) 20:23, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
• Yes. The events of 7 October (some of the massacres are listed here) can only be described as pure terrorism. Having that in mind, as well as the religious/ideological background of Hamas, it is logical to qualify those events as Islamist terrorist attacks. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 19:03, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
• Comment. It seems that this list purposely excludes Islamist terrorist attacks against Israel/Israelis, since between the 1980s when this list begins, until today, there are only two items on this list pertaining to Israel, despite the fact there have been dozens, or even hundreds, of notable Islamist terror attacks in Israel perpetrated against innocent Israeli civilians. Therefore, I propose that at the top of the list readers should be directed to a dedicated list for all the Islamist terrorist attacks that have taken place against Israelis and/or in Israel. Then we can end this insane discussion about whether or not the cold-blooded murder of babies, children, elderly, swimmers, music lovers, and every other kind of imaginable civilian is a terrorist attack or not. DaringDonna (talk) 19:26, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

  Most terror attacks against Israelis have been nationalistic, not Islamist. nableezy - 19:28, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

References

• Yes of course, and I can't believe we're having this discussion. Hamas is an Islamic terror organization and committed an act of terror. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:46, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Selection criteria

In a subthread of the RfC above, some people apparently are unclear what the selection criteria of this list article should be. A starter for ten: this is a list of terrorist attacks by Islamist groups. Any other ideas? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 17:21, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

0/10. Just a statement without definitions, without anything in fact. Selfstudier (talk) 17:45, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Definitions: an attack is a terrorist attack if reliable sources call it a terrorist attack. A group is an Islamist group if reliable sources call it an Islamist group. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 19:25, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Not really. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not press clippings. — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:29, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Using any other criteria would be original research and is not allowed. XeCyranium (talk) 01:13, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I think what @Kashmiri might be saying is that you can't have source A saying that something is a terrorist attack, source B saying a group is an Islamist group and arrive at C conclusion that there was an Islamist terrorist attack as that would obviously be WP:SYNTH. There have been plenty of entries of that sort in this list and I will probably find more. This list is a mess of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. TarnishedPath^talk 09:43, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

What I meant is that you can find "reliable" media sources in support of virtually any proposition. As we know, despite lofty slogans, rarely are media politically impartial, as they each target their specific readership group and rely on specific advertisers (who often have vested interests in politics). Consequently, it's fairly easy to find any description we want of any given subject in what we normally term as "reliable sources". For instance, we can find any US president called either a genius or an idiot, depending on which side of the political spectrum our source positions itself. A country may be termed free or non-free, a government democratic or undemocratic, depending on what press we read. For the matter at hand, we will easily find reliable sources that call Hamas a terrorist organisation, and other reliable sources that carefully avoid such a label or present them as legitimate representatives of the Palestinians.

My point is, the mere fact of coming across a specific wording in the media does not mean that this wording should be automatically incorporated verbatim into Wikipedia. Because Wikipedia is not a collection of press clippings – we have (or aim to have) editorial policies (e.g., WP:NPOV, MOS:TERRORIST) and an editorial oversight. — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:34, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

You wrote, "For the matter at hand, we will easily find reliable sources that call Hamas a terrorist organisation, and other reliable sources that carefully avoid such a label or present them as legitimate representatives of the Palestinians."

What are these reliable sources presenting Hamas as "legitimate representatives" of the Palestinians, as you stated? Perhaps I have been ignorant, but I'm genuinely curious as I have never come across such depiction of Hamas in reliable sources before. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 03:08, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

1/10 Drawing on this RfC: "An event is eligible for inclusion in this list if it fulfills all of the following criteria: 1) It is notable; 2) A consensus of reliable sources describes it as "terrorism"; 3) A consensus of reliable sources describes it in relation with Islamist ideology or influence." François Robere (talk) 20:05, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

That's a step in the right direction. Selfstudier (talk) 20:47, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

A consensus of reliable sources? Are you aware that there isn't even an academic consensus as to what constitutes terrorism? If the academia can't agree, what value would any "consensus" of mass media have? — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:06, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

We only need to worry about what are considered to be reliable sources by Wikipedia standards. As long as entries don't have the WP:SYNTH issues I've raised before what @François Robere has suggested is certainly a lot better than a lot of the entries currently in the list which have heaps of WP:OR issues. TarnishedPath^talk 23:23, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

TarnishedPath, I restored 2002 Bali bombings and Riyadh compound bombings to the list. These were both clearly Islamist terrorist attacks as defined on the respective articles. If need be, more sourcing can be pulled in for those articles. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:23, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

@Jweiss11, please refer to WP:RSPWP. Wikipedia is not a reliable source. If you're going to introduce entries please do so with sources that are reliable and don't have WP:OR issues. The 2002 Bali bombings one your edited to introduce has WP:OR problems. The Riyadh compound bombings one is WP:OR insofar as it a) doesn't specifically mention the attack, b) doesn't mention islam- and c) doesn't mention terrorism. Can you please correct this before they are removed. TarnishedPath^talk 06:43, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Ps, where did you find the endash on a keyboard? TarnishedPath^talk 06:45, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

where did you find the endash on a keyboard? LAlt + 0150, as always. You might like to read Wikipedia:How to make dashes. Hope it helps. — kashmīrī ^TALK 07:39, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

cheers TarnishedPath^talk 09:36, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Rationale: The first two criteria are fairly obvious, and have been accepted in a similar form at Talk:List of major terrorist incidents. The third criterion, "in relation with Islamist ideology or influence", is a bit more nuanced, so I'd like to explain why I chose this wording:

• We need to take into account that most sources, at least in my impression, don't explicitly state that an attack was "Islamist terrorist" or even "motivated by Islamist ideology" (see my discussion with Antoine in the previous thread); instead, they state that an organization or person are "Islamist" or "Islamic fundamentalist", and let the reader "fill in the gap". Asking that sources describe an event "in relation" with Islamist ideology gives Wikipedians the leeway to do that as well.
• We need to account for differences in wiki-terminology and common terminology. For example, this list uses the term "Islamist", but it probably intends "Islamic radicalism" or "Islamic extremism". Which is the right term is beyond the scope of this discussion; sources may use them interchangeably, so we should account for all of them. The current wording is one way of doing that, albeit imperfectly. François Robere (talk) 11:36, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

"A consensus of reliable sources describes it in relation with Islamist ideology or influence". I don't like this, it is not specific enough and it should be part of 2) in any case, that is the same consensus of reliable sources.

"Consensus of reliable sources" is also too vague, I prefer the wording used in MOS:TERRORIST, "widely used by [independent] reliable sources"

The cause must be directly attributed to one of "Islamist", "Islamic radicalism" or "Islamic extremism" not just related to otherwise we just allow flimflam and speculation.

This should go to RFC for approval once we agree the criteria. Selfstudier (talk) 13:18, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Take #2: "An event is eligible for inclusion in this list if it fulfills all of the following criteria: 1) It is notable; 2) It has been widely described by reliable sources as "terrorism". 3) It has been attributed, in whole or in part, to an Islamist, Islamic extremist or Islamic fundamentalist ideology, agenda or belief".

Also, I agree this should go to an RfC. François Robere (talk) 14:55, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

We could use the same definition as in the lead of Islamic terrorism: terrorist acts with religious motivations carried out by fundamentalist militant Islamists and Islamic extremists so we need reliable secondary sources confirming ALL points (and not one source for A, another one for B, and one for C): A) terrorist act + B) religious motivations + C) Islamist perpetrators. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 15:16, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I've just discovered the Foundation for Political Innovation's database of "Islamist terrorist attacks in the world 1979-2019". They define terrorism and Islamism and note that A number of attacks do not appear in our “retained estimate” when religious motivation is not clearly predominant in a combination involving another determination. Islamist terrorism takes place in singular and complex contexts that some- times make it difficult to collect reliable data. This is particularly the case in situations of war, civil or international, independentist or separatist struggles and territorial conflicts that persist over long periods of time, where causalities are shifting or inextricable, as in the case of the Palestinian conflict, while in a completely different context, in Thailand for example, a separatist movement has led a Muslim minority to get involved with weapons in the name of objectives that can achieve, beyond political demands, a religious dimension. and Islamist motivation is not always identified. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 16:31, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

For all these reasons, expecting sources to be able to identify motivation seems problematic. Perhaps the article would be easier to define as “List of terror attacks by Islamist groups”. There seems to be much less contention over whether a group is Islamist, than over whether an attack has Islamist motivations. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 09:46, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes renaming into “List of terror attacks by Islamist groups” would largely solve the problem. Or we can rely on databases such as the Foundation for Political Innovation's one. Here's the 2021 update. I don't know if other RS publish similar lists. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 10:01, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Excellent suggestion. François Robere (talk) 10:10, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

2/10 Per Barnards.tar.gz's suggestion, rename the article to "List of terrorist attacks by Islamist organizations", and attach this rule: "An event is eligible for inclusion in this list if it fulfills all of the following criteria: 1) It is notable; 2) It has been widely described by reliable sources as "terrorism", and attributed - in whole or in part - to individuals or organizations that are considered Islamist, Islamic extremist or Islamic fundamentalist". François Robere (talk) 10:17, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

@François Robere, I'd vote against that and I don't think I'm the only one. I think for an event to be included in this list there has to be religious motivation. We had a move discussion not long ago Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks#Requested move 2 September 2023 and there was quite a bit of support for List of Islamic extremist attacks. Unfortunately that wasn't the target I suggested when I started the discussion, if it had been perhaps the move request would have been successful because when others suggested it I was supportive of it. What we ended up having was some people supporting what I suggested in the requested move argument, others supporting List of Islamic extremist attacks and some voting no. If anyone was going to start a new requested move discussion I would suggest List of Islamic extremist attacks as being the most likely candidate for being successful. A lot of the entries that currently have issues with inclusion on this list would be able to remain (ones where terrorism isn't explicitly mentioned in the sources). However the sources would still need to demonstrate that an attack was extremist and that religion was the motivating factor. TarnishedPath^talk 10:34, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I think we should let go of the idea that motivation is a particularly useful or encyclopedic framing for a list article. It’s rarely reported in sources, and just in general terms people’s motivations are often subjective or inscrutable. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 11:09, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I would support this, although I would still prefer groups rather than organizations, to avoid an ENGVAR issue over s/z, because it’s shorter, and because to my ear “organization” implies a degree of formality that might not always be present. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 11:13, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Imo, we should leave the title alone ftb since we had a recent discussion about that already and just open an RFC for the inclusion criteria. I am not entirely happy with the wording at the moment but we can iron it out in RFC when we get the views of additional editors. Selfstudier (talk) 14:58, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

• This list and all others related to terrorist attacks should be deleted or else reorganized similarly to List of ethnic cleansing campaigns: entries should be given in the format "X source stated that Y incident was an islamist terrorist attack" and the inclusion criteria should be scholarly sources from terrorism or related fields that would support such a statement. This is because, even more so than ethnic cleansing, consensus definitions of terrorism remain elusive and are not agreed on by RS. (t · c) buidhe 04:48, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

  Agree! — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:37, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Incidents for consideration of inclusion

• Alas Chiricanas Flight 00901
• AMIA bombing
• El Descanso bombing
• Assassination of Rafic Hariri
• 2009 Hezbollah plot in Egypt
• Iraqi Airways Flight 163
• 1992 Buenos Aires Israeli embassy bombing
• Khobar Towers bombing
• Kuwait Airways Flight 422
• 1983 Kuwait bombings
• 1985 Kuwait City bombings
• Trans World Airlines Flight 847

BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:14, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Citations which would be used for each? TarnishedPath^talk 12:19, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

This is based on what it says about motivation in our own articles, but I haven’t checked sources yet. BobFromBrockley (talk) 01:15, 26 October 2023 (UTC)