The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on terrorism, individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Terrorism is not Islamic ,because unjust violence is not Jihad and not Islamic in principle...It is a politicized distortion of Islamic teachings, like Crusades to Christianity, and modern Zionism to Judaism .--Haywi (talk) 11:54, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Technically, yes. I think what is being used here is WP:COMMON NAME - "Islamist" terrorism is rarely used in the press, even if it is more to the point.22.214.171.124 (talk) 15:04, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
In the section Religious motivation, the information by Olivier is presented at length. There are other scholars, like Gilles Kepel we could also present. Does anyone have any suitable & publicly available sources by him? Googling in French is not my forte. AadaamS (talk) 10:08, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
If you have specific suggestions, it would be best to note that here. Putting a tag on the page and then accusing non-Islamic editors of inherent bias is probably going to earn yuou some sort of restriction or block in the long run. ValarianB (talk) 13:02, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Better yet, please provide specific suggestions supported by WP:RS sources. AadaamS (talk) 18:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Actually the religion of the editors is immaterial to the content of the article, that would be a sort of identity politics to suggest that "a certain category of editors" is required to make a good article, this is not true. What is required are WP:RS that are presented in a neutral manner. If the condition for "NPOV met" in this case is the religion of the authors, that makes the POV tag inavlid. AadaamS (talk) 18:51, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: consensus not to move the pages as proposed at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 18:11, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
– The actual name seems to be "Islamism", so as a verb it seems clearer to say "Islamist", rather than "Islamic". Unreal7 (talk) 14:08, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Oppose as Islamic is more inclusive than Islamist, and some instances of Islamic terror may not be Islamist. Furthermore, "Islamic terrorism" is much more prevalent than "Islamist terrorism" - which as a phrase doesn't even show up on ngram-  - so per COMMONNAME, Islamic terrorism is the appropriate term.Icewhiz (talk) 14:39, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Support "Islamic terrorism" is a loaded term, used to indict the religion as a whole, while "Islamist" is more appropriate and directly-focused on the small extremists within Islam. This is why there was such a tizzy when Trump used the wrong word in a speech. ValarianB (talk) 14:53, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Oppose Per precedent of the many, many move discussions wanting the same thing. Anyway, if this page were to be moved it needs to include islamic extremism in the discussion as well, which has the same supposed issue. It does not seem like there was an iota of due diligence performed by the nominator.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 10:37, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Nothing in the first para of the Citizenship issues sub-section establishes any relationship to the phenomenon of Islamic terrorism. It's difficult for Muslims to get citizenship in affluent Muslin countries - so what? Especially as the section is called "Motivations of Islamic terrorism". Pincrete (talk) 12:07, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi Bondegezou could you find the page for the "99%" statement you introduced to the article with your revert per WP:BURDEN? Per my edit comment, that statistic is not immediately available in the source and may therefore constitute WP:SYNTH or even WP:OR. The time frame may also constitute cherry-picking. Have a nice day, AadaamS (talk) 08:27, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
The articles about Left-Wing, Communist, Right-Wing and Islam, etc. are named "terrorism" while for Zionist "political violence" is used. All describe terrorist attacks as defined as in the Wikipedia article about terrorism ("Terrorism is, in the broadest sense, the use of intentionally indiscriminate violence as a means to create terror among masses of people; or fear to achieve a religious or political aim. , see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism).
We either have to change all to terrorism or all to political violence, everything else would not be neutral.