Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Switching to boxes

Currently working on the attacks from 2002-2009, so if you were about to work on them, don't waste your time. I should be done very soon. Ralphw (talk) 00:52, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I just finished the 2002 one, I'm going to try and finish the next years during the next week or so. Ralphw (talk) 03:17, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

What's the status of this? Natureium (talk) 18:27, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Dead, I would think you are free to convert to boxes. I'm going to probably do it tommorow, infact, assuming the article isn't locked again for the quintillionth time. R00b07 (talk) 09:04, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Added boxes until 2006. I'm done for now. Terrorism makes me sick to my stomach. I'm going to edit some other page now. R00b07 (talk) 11:34, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Back to editing and now it's locked until July 11th (except for admins). Vandals are making editing this page a living hell. R00b07 (talk) 19:02, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

No vandals this time, only disruptive editing, as indicated in the protector's edit summary. Vandals are rarely autoconfirmed so they can usually be sent packing by semi-protection. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:08, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 6 July 2016 b

To add the Orlando shooting to the list, per closed RfC.

Edit:

• United States June 12, 2016 – 49 people were killed and 53 injured in a mass shooting at a nightclub in Orlando, Florida. The attacker, Omar Mateen, had pledged allegiance to the Islamist terrorist group ISIL prior to the attack. The incident would later be claimed by ISIL

The above will do for now; once protection expires, a couple editors (including myself) will make some changes, including tables. Dschslava ^Δx parlez moi 17:24, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Dschslava ^Δx parlez moi 07:28, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Please state the specific change (and wording) you are requesting. Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:05, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Why not the one that was deleted by myself and others? what do you think Dschslava would this be acceptable;

• United States June 12, 2016 – 49 people were killed and 53 injured in a mass shooting at a nightclub in Orlando, Florida. The attacker, Omar Mateen, had pledged allegiance to the Islamist terrorist group ISIL prior to the attack. The incident would later be claimed by ISIL

Note; I slightly changed the wording. I also cannot scrutinize the sources, New York Times I have been informed is generally very reliable, CNN I have heard some things about, but to be honest, I've heard things about the BBC, ABC, NBC, and any other three letter news organization, and especially, especially, have I mentioned especially, FOX. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:14, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Was it false modesty when user: Mr rnddude claimed to be unaware of the reputation of the New York Times? If not, User: Mr rnddude should not be treated as an authority/gatekeeper on this topic. Mrdthree (talk) 11:46, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

No it wasn't, I was informed of it on the spot by an IP and another editor. I repeat it for the last time, I am not from the US, I am not from New York, I don't read your papers, I don't care about your papers, I only know minimal amounts about your papers, with the exception of FOX, because you can't log onto YouTube without being told how shit FOX is. Now if you're done with the commentary, go do something productive, and leave me to my duties. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:51, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Mrdthree, a serious question, what part of "I cannot scrutinize the sources" went so far over the top of your head that you think that sort of commentary is 1. warranted, 2. acceptable and 3. intelligent. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:07, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Maybe a good time for all involved to consider their current level of civility. TimothyJosephWood 12:18, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

So, I have considered it, genuinely considered it. My current level of civility, warranted. This is not the first bit of snarky commentary I have received from the editor in question. If he has a problem, take it to my talk page, or, alternatively, sod off. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:44, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Mrdthree, I take it that this false modesty you speak of is quite present in your daily life. The RfC is closed. He's recommended a very suitable inclusion. And what do you do but criticise his ignorance? Does this mean anything to you? It seems that Mr rnddude was informed of his error. Why, then, do you claim that he is unable to be treated as a "gatekeeper" (another idiotic and wholly inaccurate moniker) on the topic? He is by no means a gatekeeper, and in no respect does he act like one. I can only conclude that you are out to get him for some imagined slight. Dschslava ^Δx parlez moi 17:23, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that would be good. Dschslava ^Δx parlez moi 17:23, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Now that the RFC has closed and weeks passed, I think the article doesn't need to be protected at all. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:13, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

The disruption was RfC-related, so it would make sense to unprotect now. I have requested that. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

We can safely say that Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information even though it wants us to believe it is at par or surpasses sources like the Encyclopedia Britannica. We'll just have to use common sense and go elsewhere for truthSvanriesen (talk) 00:24, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Mandruss, Mr Ernie: Did either of you follow up with another admin (or at WP:UNPROTECT) as User:CambridgeBayWeather suggested? May I suggest that one editor post a request at WP:UNPROTECT, explaining the situation and asking for a reduction from full protection to semi-protection. I imagine the change would be made pretty quickly. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:45, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

done. Dschslava ^Δx parlez moi 02:30, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

As the protection has been lowered, I have now disabled the edit request. I never did get a description of the specific change that was being requested! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:20, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

No description of the specific change? How about the Orlando citation above? R00b07 (talk) 20:27, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

FYI the information was added by Kingsindian earlier today. TimothyJosephWood 21:11, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Was the Orlando killer a member of an Islamic terrorist group prior to the shooting?

http://www.breitbart.com/jerusalem/2016/06/12/exclusive-top-gazan-jihadist-claims-orlando-shooter-terror-group-member/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZeroXero (talk • contribs) 18:40, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Breitbart is generally not considered a reliable source, especially for issues like terrorism and Islam. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:27, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

So does anyone have a good source that supports the claim? --Guy Macon (talk) 06:25, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Of course not, because there is none. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 13:17, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

NBC News and CBS News have both documented that the shooter called several times to 911 Authorities and to a news journalist during the hostage taking event to specifically make sure that he was credited as an Islamic Jihadists and during those calls declared allegiance to following radical jihadists - ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, (NBC News reports) - He also mentioned the Tsarnaev brothers, who carried out the Boston Marathon bombing, during the call, (CBS News reports). Links to multiple news sources begin here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coriantumr15 (talk • contribs) 17:12, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

References

With all due respect, Coriantumr15, you seem to have missed the point. The allegation made by Breitbart and the original poster is that Mateen belonged to an Islamist terrorist organization before the shooting. Which is something nobody but Breitbart has reported. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:18, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I am the OP, I did not make the allegation, I merely opened the topic for renewed discussion. My own skepticism about the claim I hoped would be clear by the heading I created, which was posed as a question, not delivered a statement or accusation. ZeroXero (talk) 18:41, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2016 a

Please add the recent terrorist attack in Iraq: the Muhammad ibn Ali al-Hadi Mausoleum attack, where over 56 people were killed. Also, add the recent attack in Nice, France with over 80 killed. Aditshah00 (talk) 10:04, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello Aditshah00. I've added the attack against the mausoleum to the list. Please join the discussion about the Nice attack higher up on this page. Thank you. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 13:43, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2016 b

The list is missing the turkey Airport attack in June 2016 that left over 100 dead and is missing the recent attack with the truck in France that left over 80 dead — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.107.250.135 (talk) 13:34, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, based on 2016 Atatürk Airport attack and its sources, the attack is suspected to be linked to ISIS, but nobody has taken responsibility or presented evidence to that effect.

With respect to the Nice attack, please join the discussion further up on this page. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 14:40, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Recommended reading

Mazzetti, Mark; Schmitt, Eric (July 17, 2016). "In the Age of ISIS, Who's a Terrorist, and Who's Simply Deranged?". The New York Times.

"If there is a mass killing and there is a Muslim involved, all of a sudden it is by definition terrorism."

On one hand, there is now good reason for government officials to make immediate assumptions after some mass killings that the Islamic State has played a role, however indirect. ... At the same time, governments also see a benefit in linking the Islamic State to what are sometimes random and unconnected acts of violence. It is a way to project order amid chaos, and to try to assure jittery citizens that there is a strategy to end the violence.

— Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:38, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

<sarcasm>Well of course the New York Times, a leader of the liberal mainstream media, is going to support the unpatriotic treasonous terrorism-apologist viewpoint.</sarcasm> I fear 98% of the world is past the point of useful intelligent debate on these issues. We will believe what we want to believe, and we will expend endless energy on confirming it. To change one's mind is to show mental weakness (and to alienate oneself from like-minded friends and family). In short, we are doomed. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:49, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Or it's just living with your eyes open. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:56, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Ditto. (See how this goes?) ―Mandruss ☎ 15:59, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Jihadi axe attack on German train

As reported in the UK Mirror:

An axe-man who stormed a passenger train and hacked at terrified passengers while shouting "Allahu Akbar" has been identified as a 17-year-old Afghan who entered Germany as a lone refugee.

The attacker was identified by stunned government officials after a huge investigation was launched just hours after the bloody attack exploded ...

He then shouted "Allahu Akbar" - which means God is greatest - before launching into the terrifying attack on innocent passengers and then attempted to flee. "

The author notes that the attack has not been "linked to extremism", as if there is some sort of "non-extremist" axe attack it might be one of. ZeroXero (talk) 00:08, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

References

As you note, the source says "There has not yet been any word on whether or not the attack is linked to extremism of any kind". Case closed. It doesn't qualify at this time as an Islamist terrorist attack because it hasn't been deemed a terrorist attack and it hasn't been attributed to Islamists. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:28, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

The ISIS claimed for the attack and the flag of ISIS has been found in attacker's appartment. 10:32, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

According to the lead investigator, Alexander Gross, "Just because I.S. is claiming this attack does not mean there is anything to it. Right now, we have to examine in great detail who he knew and with whom he was in contact in order to create a complete picture." Source: The New York Times — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 11:07, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Claims of responsibility from ISIL don't mean a great deal. However, the world does contain cranks who act out their violent fantasies in the hope that ISIL will approve of them.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:24, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

This. Daesh would claim responsibility for me stubbing my toe. Their "claim" of this incident was almost verbatim with their claim for Nice and other attacks. A blanket urging of and subsequent claiming of attacks, everywhere that isn't ISIL territory, isn't credible. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:41, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

This is not saying that ISIL is responsible for the attack, but that the attack was an Islamist attack. When you have an ISIL flag, etc. then it stands to reason that it is an Islamist attack. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:55, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Several editors seem to want to establish this test: "The terrorist was a long term member of ISIS or other recognized terrorist group." While this would be convenient to establish motivation using this test would exclude "loan wolf" attacks by self radicalized terrorists. Thus an investigator saying "we do not believe he was in touch with ISIS" does not exclude that the individual is still responsible for an Islamist terrorist attack. as has been repeatedly asserted here. It may make it much more difficult to determine the nature of the attack, particularly when the attacker is dead, but it certainly does not rule out that it was an Islamist Terrorist Attack belonging on this list. ZeroXero (talk) 17:19, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

• In the case of the German train attack we do have new evidence of this being an Islamic terrorist attack. Which again is also contradicted by other statements in the same article. From the Daily Mail:

ISIS has released a chilling video of the Afghan refugee who went on an axe rampage on a German train where he says he will attack the country in revenge for airstrikes against the terror group.

Now it has been revealed that police searching the home where he had been living had found an home-made ISIS flag and a note indicating that he had become self-radicalised.

'It is quite probable that this was an Islamist attack,' said a ministry spokesman, adding that the attacker had shouted 'Allahu akbar' (God is greatest). A police spokesman added: 'Shortly after arriving at Wuerzburg, a man attacked passengers with an axe and a knife.

But then in the same article we have this contradictory statement: "Early reports suggested he had yelled 'Allahu Akbar' but police later said there was no evidence pointing to a religious motive. He is being held in a psychiatric hospital."

I think the video, if authenticated is definitive. ZeroXero (talk) 17:19, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

References

If authenticated, the video will be of interest to authorities. Not to us, because it is not a reliable source. Please wait until reliable sources make clear assertions that this was a terrorist attack and that it was done by Islamists. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:48, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Should we archive much of the old discussion on this page?

What would people think about archiving much of this page? We have a few recent events that we are discussing, but there is a tremendous amount of discussion on this page that was done on previous events that is all basically a closed issue. (I don't know how to archive, so I will not take this task on, but think it might be a good idea and wondered what others thought) ZeroXero (talk) 17:24, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

The page is currently set to archive threads that have been idle for 30 days. One could argue that that is unnecessarily long, but one could also argue that 37 threads is not too many. I tend to lean toward the latter, but I wouldn't object to reducing it to, say, 21 days. People usually just make the change per WP:BOLD and see if anyone objects. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:48, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Although they're less than 30 days old, much of the older discussion is closed. I wouldn't object to changing the bot rule to 14 days for a little while to archive the Orlando discussions, and then changing it back. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:52, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Done. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:54, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Two archive actions completed, reducing threads to 11 and reducing bytes by 87%. Bumped it up to 21 days. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:46, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Mandruss. I just manually archived the last remaining section about Orlando, and I think we're okay. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Proposed addition: 2016 Nice attack

Attack on a crowded pedestrian mall by a man with a large truck results in the deaths of more than 70 people and 100 injured. ISIS claims responsibility for the attack [1] ZeroXero (talk) 14:44, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• The source provided does not say that ISIS took responsibility for the attack. TimothyJosephWood 15:08, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• • You are correct, I was mistaken. ZeroXero (talk) 00:21, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

• French and other European media reporting perpetrator not associated with any terrorist group, not associated with any mosque, didn't observe Ramadan, drank, ate pork, took drugs and was violent to his former wife. So, so far, no indication this was Islamist. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:58, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• I support the addition of the 2016 Nice attack to the list as soon as somebody produces a reliable source or two that clearly attribute the attack to Islamists. Until then, I invite the trolls -- like the three who have already tried to insert it -- to crawl back into the woodwork. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:24, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• • OK, well the AP has reported that ISIS has taken responsibility, the French Defense Minister has blamed ISIS as reported in the New York Times. Does this meet your criteria? If not, perhaps you could further explain what would. Thanks! ZeroXero (talk) 18:41, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

See below. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:36, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

• Closest I've seen is that a French prosecutor said it had the "hallmarks of jihadist terrorism" ([2]). We need a definite link though. Until then, it does not fall under the scope of the list. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:29, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• It's undeniable that this was an Islamist attack, so the sources will come shortly. We should wait for the attack to be added until the sources come out. R00b07 (talk) 18:08, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

We have to wait for sources. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

It's weird, because although it was undoubtedly a deliberate attack, the motive isn't easy to pin down and claims of responsibility from ISIL if they occur are likely to be the usual propaganda hype. The view of French investigators is what matters. As usual, this "list" is causing more problems than it solves.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:29, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't know why it should in this instance. We know it was an attack and terrorism, but we don't know for sure if it was by an Islamist. When we know for sure it'll get added or not added. No real problem except by a few jumping the gun. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:48, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

The Nice attack is a lot like Orlando because in both cases the perpetrator may have had no links to Islamic extremist organizations. However, ISIL has encouraged lone wolf attacks, and this would seem to be another example.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:04, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm unclear how you're drawing that conclusion when the attacker doesn't appear to have even been a practicing Muslim. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:02, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

ISIS has claimed the attack already (as I recall) and at least one source is reporting it as such (refer to the article on the Nice attack), other than that, nada. It has absolutely nada (yet.) to do with Islamist terrorism. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:11, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Just so that everyone is on the same page, related articles are at Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel and 2016 Nice attack. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:24, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

• ISIS has claimed responsibility for the shooting. Source is AP, also widely reported elsewhere.

French Prosecutor François Molins, who is investigating the event said this: Bouhlel was “entirely unknown” to anti-terrorist units, the prosecutor said. “Yesterday’s attack has not yet been claimed, but I must stay that this kind of attack is in line with the type advocated by the terrorist organizations in various videos,” he said. ZeroXero (talk) 18:24, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

• The Defense Minister of France has publicly blamed ISIS for the attack. Source is the New York Times.

"The Islamic State claimed on Saturday that the man who attacked the seaside city of Nice was one of the group’s “soldiers.” France’s defense minister promptly blamed the terrorist network for inspiring the assault, while its top law enforcement official said the attacker, who was not previously known to intelligence agencies, may have “radicalized himself very quickly.” ZeroXero (talk) 18:41, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

References

Please read your own source: "The claim [ISIL's claim of responsibility] must be greeted with caution, because there was yet no evidence suggesting that the driver was radicalized, or had even been exposed to the Islamic State’s propaganda." — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:34, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Of course I read the article I cited. Yes, the journalist urged caution. I am still not seeing that is actual evidence either for or against the thesis that the killing was carried out as an Islamic Terrorist attack. The opinion of the investigators in France, however is clearly at least secondary source evidence, and may well be based on primary evidence that he has access to an we do not. My goal is to provide well referenced quotes from the people with primary responsibility for the investigation in France. If we are to ever reach a clear understanding of the motives in this case that is where it is most likely to come from. ZeroXero (talk) 16:03, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

• CNN is reporting that French interior minister Bernard Cazeneuve says "It seems that the attacker [Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel] got radicalized very rapidly". Maybe not definitive, but getting very close. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:21, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

• ...and the French interior minister knows this...how? --Guy Macon (talk) 14:43, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

• No idea. He is certainly privy to things I am not. It's simply a source. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:21, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

• ...but not a reliable one for this purpose. Politicians say all sorts of things. Unless he either presents evidence or at least says that he has evidence that he cannot reveal, he is only a reliable source on what the opinions of the French interior minister are. This whole business is starting to smell. No evidence by anyone who is in a position to know, a lot of speculation, and attempts to get Wikipedia treat the speculation as established fact instead of waiting for a reliable source. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

• Well it is hard to prove an Islamic background without a statement from the attacher but the signs are overwhelming: Consumed a lot of ISIL propaganda / Alternative source; Uncle says he was recruited; Connection to well know terrorist Omar Daiby — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcadius Romanus (talk • contribs) 23:13, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Amazing how you missed other parts of the same articles... "Yet officials acknowledged that Bouhlel appeared on no terror watch lists and remained in many ways a mystery to investigators." "a Nice friend of the mass murderer’s wife said the idea of Bouhlel striking a blow for radical Islam was at complete odds with his lifestyle. “He was not Muslim,” the friend told NBC News. “He ate pork, he drank alcohol, he hit his wife. That is not Muslim.” Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:20, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

So only people who have previously been on a terror watch list can be considered as Islamic terrorists? Many Islamic extremist completely change their lifestyle during the phase of radicalization. But is doesn't matter what kind of lifestyle he lived. Many (probably most) people say the lifestyle of ISIL fighters is highly un-islamic (porn, sex, drugs) but we still considers them as Islamic terrorists. Arcadius Romanus (talk) 00:13, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Today's news is that the French government now believes it was wrong earlier when it said the attacker had become rapidly radicalized in the weeks before the attack. The latest theory is that he planned his assault for several months and had help from at least five people. Still, "although the Islamic State called the attacker one of its 'soldiers,' there is as yet no evidence that he or the suspected accomplices had any direct contact with the terrorist network, the prosecutor, François Molins, who handles terrorism investigations in France, said at a news conference in Paris." This is why we don't say "Somebody stepped on my toe and shouted 'Allahu Akbar!' We should add it to the list!" Still waiting for a reliable source to describe the attack as an Islamist attack or attribute it to an Islamist organization. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:10, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

This, exactly. I think if investigations/prosecutions progress along the lines suggested in the the latest reports, the Nice attack will end up being included in the list, but that's after proper investigation and subsequent reporting from reliable sources. Which is much more preferable than "random attack happened, the perpetrator wasn't white or was Muslim, it must be included here, NOW!" reaction that seems so common. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 08:41, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2016

Please continue the table formatting after the year 2010.

2601:480:8507:C2E0:896C:5452:4D08:5A1F (talk) 22:04, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Is anyone opposed to this? I can get a regex script up to deal with it. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:24, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I have no objection, and more power to you if you can do it. I consider myself lucky if I edit a table without breaking it. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:55, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I think it would be an excellent improvement too, please reformat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZeroXero (talk • contribs) 16:03, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Already done VarunFEB2003 (talk) 18:21, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

1985 Borobudur bombing deaths should be 0 instead of 24

The entry's reference link (Miami Herald snippet) states that there were no injuries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericbakuladavis (talk • contribs) 23:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Fixed. Evidently the person who added the entry copied the numbers from the previous one and forgot to change them. Thanks for noticing! ansh666 23:58, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Munich attacks

Should it be included? Read this —SquidHomme ^(talk) 19:40, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Is there another source, or has the Indian financial press got the scoop on this? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:44, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Here's another source. It covers the Islamic State supporters celebrating. Here—SquidHomme ^(talk) 19:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

If somebody stubs their toe nowadays, ISIL claims responsibility. It's far too early to give any clear motive on the Munich attack, and we don't want to make the same mistake that was made immediately after the 2011 Norway attacks, which turned out to be the work of a right wing extremist. Today is the fifth anniversary of the 2011 Norway attacks, some media sources have mentioned this, but it has unclear relevance at the moment.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:49, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) An attack does not become an Islamist terrorist attack simply because Islamic State supporters celebrate on social media. We need sources to actually come to that conclusion.- MrX 19:52, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

It is WP:OR to go from "ISIS claimed responsibility" to "It was an Islamist terrorist attack". Your source does not call it that in their own voice, it merely reports what ISIS says. We may collectively decide that one implies the other, but I haven't seen that broadly-stated consensus. I would actively oppose that, but I would abide if passed. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:54, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

According to that source, ISIL claimed responsibility, which means ISIL did that. However, I'm not sure this source is reliable.—SquidHomme ^(talk) 19:59, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I think that ISIS claiming responsibility is meaningful evidence buy not by istelf definitive. Can anyone cite a case where ISIS claimed responsibility and it turned out to clearly have nothing to do with them, such as a jealous lover, or a terrorist attack like the 2011 Norway attacks? I can not.

The grey area right now is "ISIS inspired" acts of individual "lone wolf" attackers, such as Nice. In that case the investigators have since learned it was a conspiracy involving multiple people to wage "jihad", in their own words I believe. Thousands of text messages we exchanged and then analyzed by authorities. But if we did not have these reports I think that it would be too ambiguous to put it on the list given the many other plausible explanations that were speculated upon in the press, including severe mental illness and steroid abuse.

So far the most recent news I've seen says that the Munich attacks are "suspected terrorism". ZeroXero (talk) 20:24, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I don't want to speculate but CNN just reported that witness said one of the perpetrators shouted the 'Islamic shadat' or such thing. —SquidHomme ^(talk) 20:31, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Fox News: A massive manhunt for three gunmen was underway in Munich Friday night after a suspected terror attack on a city shopping mall left at least eight people dead and an unknown number injured.

Fox NewsPolice spokesman Peter Beck told reporters, "there are shooters on the run who are dangerous." He added that the gunmen were armed with rifles and that Islamist terrorism was not suspected as a motive.

ZeroXero (talk) 21:02, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

A Muslim woman told CNN that she heard the gunman yell: "Allahu Akbar," yet video footage showed a gunman ranting against foreigners and Turks, suggesting a Neo Nazi attack.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/22/shots-fired-at-munich-shopping-centre// —SquidHomme ^(talk) 21:48, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

It matters not if he shouted Islamic shadat (or such thing), shouted Allahu Akbar, carried a copy of the Quran in his pocket, or prayed facing the Kaaba during the attack. All that is WP:OR detective work unless reliable sources call it Islamist terror attack in their own voices. It's adding Islam to terror and getting Islamist terror, clear WP:SYNTH. You are wasting your time. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:06, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Seriously? The attackers are still at large, nobody knows anything about them or their motives, and you're here wondering if it should be added to this list? Strangely, on the anniversary of the Norway attack, my watchlist shows you're not idly speculating over on the talk page at Christian terrorism that it might be right-wing Christianist white supremacists... Your bias may be showing. And has been pointed out multiple times on this page, ISIL will claim responsibility for anything; and several apparent "Islamist attacks" added in haste to this list simply weren't.

Put simply: when reliable sources report that it has been established that a terrorist attack was Islamist in nature, then it can be added here. That's not going to happen in the immediate aftermath of an attack, let alone while during one. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:17, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Reuters reports that the killer was fixated on mass shootings and had no ties to Islamic militants, nor was inspired by them. Let the matter settle down one way or another for now. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 06:29, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Kingsindian. I read that yesterday and meant to post it here. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:34, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Source policy?

I just saw this revision and was wondering about the source/ref policy. Is it enough that the linked Wikipedia article shows the Islamic motive or is an external source/ref needed in this article? If so most of the entries need external sources. If not users should at least read the first paragraph of linked articles before reverting the edit. Arcadius Romanus (talk) 10:15, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

The relevant guideline is WP:Stand-alone lists, particularly the section titled "Citing sources". In short, the fact that something is sourced elsewhere in Wikipedia doesn’t matter, it's supposed to be sourced here. (That's true of every list in the encyclopedia, not just this one.) Unfortunately, the guideline is frequently ignored. My personal opinion is that it's best to include a source here, but I don't remove an incident if it has appropriate sources in its own article. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 11:33, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. I just noticed earlier that a lot of the earlier entries not only don't have any external sources but also don't link to an internal article. Such entries should be removed (though I'd agree that entries where the linked articles do have proper sourcing should remain). Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:38, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Terrorist or disturbed loner?

New York Times, 24 July: Terrorist or Disturbed Loner? Munich Attack Reveals Shifting Labels

When mass killers show even minor hints of affinity for jihadist groups, as they did in recent attacks in Orlando, Fla., and Nice, France, their actions are swiftly judged to be terrorism. But when their source of inspiration appears to be right-wing extremism, as Mr. Andrä speculated could be the case in Munich, they are often treated as disturbed loners. This has fed concerns by civil rights groups and Muslim organizations, in Europe and the United States, that there is a lower bar for labeling something as terrorism when it can be linked to Islam. This tendency, they warn, feeds into anti-Muslim sentiment at a time when far-right populist movements are calling for special restrictions on Muslims.

Exactamente. To be clear, I'm not saying Wikipedia editing should compensate for the shortcomings of the media in this area or any other. That said, we could be more diligent/rigorous in our assessment of reliable sources on this. I feel we have been too often adding our own failure to that of the media. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:51, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. This should be pinned to the top of the page! (It's almost tempting to start an article, List of attacks that bandwagon-jumpers rushed to label as Islamist only to disappear when it turned out no, they were nothing of the sort, but that may breach naming conventions. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Needless to say, I agree with both of you. I always ask what the rush is. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:44, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

It's a good article from the NYT and confirms what has been said here for some time. Some parts of the media are lazily going along with ISIL propaganda, creating a double standard where Muslims are blamed for terrorism, while other people who do the same things are seen as disturbed loners.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:49, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

BBC News, 25 July: What drives individuals to commit mass killings? by Frank Gardner.

All of this poses a major problem for US and European governments and intelligence agencies trying to stop the next mass killing. Mental health is not usually in their remit. At a recent meeting of Western counter-terrorism officers in Washington, it was concluded that agencies well-practiced in confronting ideological organisations like IS were ill-equipped to deal with lone individuals bearing murderous personal grievances. The challenge becomes even harder when a troubled individual with mental problems is cynically recruited by a terrorist organisation, thus blurring the lines between the two.

This is another interesting piece which looks at the increasingly blurred line between disturbed individuals and ideological motivation. The media does seem to be more aware of this problem.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

German axe attack - We now have clear proof of "Islamic terrorism" - request it is added to list.

The New York Times is now reporting that ISIS has released a video of the attacker, recorded before the event, explaining his motivations for the attack in typical Islamic Jihadi fashion.

"On Tuesday afternoon, the Islamic State released a video with Arabic subtitles of a young man, who appeared to be the one who carried out the attack, reciting a jihadist manifesto.

In the video, the young man said in Pashto, one of the major languages of Afghanistan, “I will do a martyrdom operation in Germany today,” and pledged allegiance to the Islamic State. He said that Islamic State fighters had settled in “infidel” countries and vowed: “God willing, you will be targeted in your villages, in your cities, in your airports, in your streets. The Islamic caliphate is strong enough to target you everywhere, even in your Parliament.” He also urged Muslims to “wake up and support the caliphate,” and to pledge allegiance to the Islamic State’s leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi."

I assume this will meet even the most exacting standards of those editors who want to ensure we do not mistakenly attribute a "non extremist" terrorist attack with a Islamist terrorist attack, the proper subject of this list.

ZeroXero (talk) 17:36, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

More selective reading. Please stop already and read the whole article before posting "clear proof" that is nothing of the sort.

"Erik Ohlenschlager, the chief prosecutor in Bamberg, said at a news conference in Würzburg that the authorities were examining the video to determine if the young man in the video was the teenager who carried out the attack." ...

"Alexander Gross, superintendent criminal detective of the Bavarian State Office of Criminal Investigations, urged the public to treat the Islamic State’s claim with caution, as many experts have also tried to do.

"'Just because I.S. is claiming this attack does not mean there is anything to it,' Mr. Gross said. 'Right now, we have to examine in great detail who he knew and with whom he was in contact, in order to create a complete picture' of what motivated him."

Please get back to us when there are reliable sources that make clear assertions that this was a terrorist attack and that it was done by Islamists. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:45, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

The interior minister of Bavaria confirmed that the attacker and the person in the video are the same. Since the authenticity of the video has been confirmed and the video clearly shows an Islamic motive there should be any reason to further delay the addition. You are probably going to ask for proof that he was linked to ISIL. 1. How did they get the video? 2. Not relevant since not every Islamic terror attack needs to be linked to ISIL.Arcadius Romanus (talk) 00:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't think there was anything unclear about what I wrote in the section above titled "Jihadi Axe Attack on German Train" at 17:48 today, nor anything does not continue to apply:

If authenticated, the video will be of interest to authorities. Not to us, because it is not a reliable source. Please wait until reliable sources make clear assertions that this was a terrorist attack and that it was done by Islamists.

Thank you for informing us that a spokesman for the Interior Minister told the media (on the record? off the record?) that (pardon my Google-assisted translation) "the investigations are still ongoing, but the security agencies believe that this video is in all likelihood authentic." That does not yet make this a terrorist attack or attribute it to Islamists, but as soon as reliable sources do, I can assure you it will be added to the list. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:04, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:04, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Here is another New York Times article "Afghan Teenager Spoke of Friend’s Death Before Ax Attack in Germany" that gives background on the axe attacker. Several issues that we have been discussing are covered in this article, from a newspaper that most people would agree is a reliable source. That article also includes a NY Times published video titled "German Train Attacker Pledges Allegiance To Isis" at the same link.

The article provides background and clarity on both the attacker and the attack, including things which there was some lack of clarity on in earlier reports.

• The attacker has not been identified by the German authorities because he was under age 18. Reporters have identified him however.

The Times reports on his actions immediately before and during the attack, which ended in his death by police shooting.

"But when he told them on Monday that he was going out for a bike ride and might be gone for a while, they had no inkling that he had left armed with an ax and a knife, determined to carry out a brutal attack in the name of the Islamic State."

Hours later, five people were hospitalized — two of them critically — after the teenager slashed them about the head and torso on a passenger train, shouting “Allahu akbar,” or God is great. The Afghan teenager, whom officials did not identify, then fled and attacked a woman walking her dog before he was cornered and killed by the German police.

"“We are aware of the video and are checking whether the identity of the person in it can be confirmed,” Mr. Ohlenschlager said. “It needs to be checked and the content to be analyzed.” Ohlenshclager is described as the 'Chief Investigator' of this event in this article.

"Yet Mr. Ohlenschlager said investigators had already found clues that the attacker sympathized with the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL. They included a hand-drawn flag of the Islamic State found in a notebook in his room and an Islamic State symbol printed on the T-shirt he wore during the attack."

"investigators had learned from people close to the attacker that over the weekend, a good friend of his had died in Afghanistan, but that they had no further details."

"It is not clear the extent to which the Afghan teenager was connected to the Islamic State. Even so, within hours of the attack, the group claimed responsibility in a bulletin issued in Arabic and English via its Amaq News Agency, calling the teenager an “Islamic State soldier.”

ISIS also released a video, showing a young man brandishing a knife and saying in Pashto, one of the primary languages in Afghanistan, “I will do a martyrdom operation in Germany today.”

Their own (official German state) investigation turned up a letter written by the young man to his father, in Pashto, saying, “Now pray for me that I can take revenge on these infidels, and that I go to heaven.”

Yet it remains unclear whether the distraught and displaced young man had latched on to the Islamic State and its symbols only in recent days, after receiving the upsetting news about the death of his friend, or whether his sympathies were more deeply rooted. (NY Times writer)

Experts who study how the Islamic State makes use of social media say the group is quick to claim success for sometimes impulsive acts carried out in its name, and to prey on the propensities for violence of the psychologically disturbed. (NY Times writer)

The social worker noticed the commotion in the next car and called the police, who were able to hear the shout of “Allahu akbar” in the background through the telephone during the call.

• AP Reports Video is authentic

The Toronto Sun has an AP story "Teen in German train attack acted alone, investigators say". It includes the first report I've seen in a reliable source that the German authorities have verified that the video is authentic, and the person speaking in it is the German train attacker.

De Maiziere said it was not yet clear when the video was made, but confirmed that investigators had determined it was authentic. It shows the young man waving a knife as he talks into the camera.

“It appears to be a classic farewell video of a suicide attacker,” de Maiziere said.

In the video, the suspect, whose name has not been released, urges others to commit attacks, saying “if you can’t come to Iraq and Syria the least you can do is kill these infidels in the countries that you live in.”

24.22.76.12 (talk) 16:38, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

References

Well, these sources give data. Nowhere do they explicitly state that it was an islamist terrorist attack, and the German investigation certainly doesn't either. To add the attack to the list based on your criteria would be WP:OR. Dschslava ^Δx parlez moi 20:04, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wurzburg train attack - time to add to list yet?

We now have multiple reports from reliable sources verifying that the attacker:

• Shouted "Allahu Akbar" while hacking at people with knives and axes.
• Was wearing a ISIS themed T-shirt at the time of the attack
• Had created a home made ISIS flag drawing in his papers
• Wrote a note to his father containing the phrase "Now pray for me that I can take revenge on these infidels, and that I go to heaven.”,
• Pre-taped a pre-death video tape, as ISIS followers commonly do, that explained his motivations in some detail including " “I will do a martyrdom operation in Germany today.” and many other Jihadi themed comments.
• Arranged for the tape so be delivered to ISIS prior to undertaking his "martyrdom operation"
• Which we know as the tape was released by ISIS, with additional commentary, in which they take credit for the operation.

In summary: the attacker himself went to great lengths to tell the world that he was doing this for ISIS, as ISIS have asked people to do, using methods ISIS has promoted, and incorporating signature elements of what ISIS has previously supported, such as the martyr's tape

What more possibly could be needed to conclude that this is an Islamic Terrorist attack, motivated by ISIS propaganda, done as directed by ISIS, acknowledged by ISIS as such? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C2:4C01:2BC9:51A0:9879:13FD:86D9 (talk) 22:56, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

The same madeup indicators against inclusion that made Orlando such an ordeal to get included. It doesn't have to be by ISIS or any other terror group, it can be a lone wolf attack inspired by radical Islamist ideology.ShadowDragon343 (talk) 17:24, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Both of you, see WP:OR. Dschslava ^Δx parlez moi 20:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be by ISIS or any other terror group, it can be a lone wolf attack inspired by radical Islamist ideology. Looks a lot like a madeup indicator to me. Please explain how your inclusion criteria are the only legitimate ones, and any opposing ones are "madeup". I and a couple of others have advocated for a full effort to develop clear inclusion criteria, with enough participation for it to stick for awhile, and there has been precious little other support for that concept. This is the result, and it will continue to be the result. Until that is done, your inclusion criteria are no more legitimate than mine, so please cease saying that they are. You can't take the result of the Orlando-specific RfC and apply it generally, except (maybe) to cases that are identical to Orlando in every way (which will never happen). Note that the RfC close statement says nothing about anything except Orlando. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Because this is a list of Islamist terror attacks, not list of ISIL terror attacks. It doesn't have to be ISIL sponsored or supported to be included on this list, just an Islamist terror attack. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:23, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

That is your editorial opinion, and you're entitled to it, just as I'm entitled to mine, until there is a documented, thoroughly-considered consensus one way or the other. All I ask is the same respect that I offer you. "Islamist terrorist attacks" is vague, ambiguous, and open to interpretation, and it is quite predictably being interpreted different ways by different groups of editors. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:38, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Well than you should consider renaming the list to "List of attacks by Islamic terrorist groups" or "List of ISIL terror attacks". Because the current title suggests a list with all terror attacks with an Islamic background. But the Würzburg cases proves that this is not the case with this list. So either you change the name and description of list or you stop denying the facts. The Akbar shouting, the video and letter are undeniable prove of a Islamic background. Additionally he didn't have any mental problems, so that argument is out too. I think it is time for an administrator stepping in to define what this list is about.Arcadius Romanus (talk) 21:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

As you well know, I can't unilaterally change either the title or the description. And I'm not sure whether you know it or not, but administrators do not define what any article is about; that is not an admin function. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:31, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

You are the one coming up with the claimed by ISIL requirement. This list 1)predates ISIL and 2)has many lone-wolf attacks. No where in the list does it state a requirement that ISIL, or any group, has to be involved in the attack. All that is needed for this list is that the attack is Islamist.Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

When and if any of you are prepared to propose alternative standards of inclusion than IWANTIT, please do so. In the meantime, stop belly-aching that you don't like the existing standards: reliable sources that describe an incident as a terrorist attack and attribute it to Islamists or an organization known to be Islamist. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:40, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, well we have all that with the Train Stabbing in Germany Malik, (see above, it's all there with citations) so lets go ahead and add it, right.

By the way, there are several other new incidents we need to get to analyzing. These Islamic Terrorists are not resting on their laurels. There were the stabbings in France of the women who were not attired properly to suite Islamic sensibilities, and now the mass shooting in the Munich mall.

I don't know that we have any indication of the mall shooting being a Muslim yet, but many are. I'm sure that we'll get some details soon enough. ZeroXero (talk) 17:17, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

So if you "don't know that we have any indication of the mall shooting being a Muslim yet" - let alone of the attack being Islamist in nature - why would you even bring it up here? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:22, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Another mass causality attack in the same country as the previous one a few days before which was an Islamic Terrorist attack suggests to me that we should analyze it to see if it belongs on the list. That is all. And, before I could snap my fingers, someone else added it as it's own discussion topic. ZeroXero (talk) 20:12, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Angela Merkel says that the attacker was radicalised by Islamic extremism. Not sure what else you want. You can find the video on Youtube(can't link to YT): "Anschlag in München: Statement von Angela Merkel am 23.07.2016" starting from 2:34 (I know that this video is about the Munich shootings but he also talks about the Würzburg attack. Arcadius Romanus (talk) 20:22, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Translation for those poor souls whose mother tongue is not German? Dschslava ^Δx parlez moi 02:10, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Würzburg train axe attack the third

I finally found an english source (everyone should be happy with The Guardian) where the state investigators confirms an Islamic motive. Also watch Angela Merkel saying it youtu..be/ls9pUVKMzjU?t=152 (turn on english subtitles). Arcadius Romanus (talk) 09:47, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I wish the article also referred to the attack as a terrorist attack, but I'm not going to object to including it in the list. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 11:25, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I only found a German article with a government statement. The last sentence is about the state attorney who threats the axe attack as an act of terrorism. Arcadius Romanus (talk) 18:06, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

2016 Charleroi attack

We should probably add the attack on police today in my country of Belgium to the list. This seems pretty clear cut to me: Reuters article Another article specifically listing the words of the attacker. Tweet from Charleroi police stating said words. DaxDupont (talk) 20:40, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree. It is clear cut. No description of the event as a terrorist attack. ("Appears to be", "may be", "points toward" are all politicians' and police officers' ways of saying "we don't know at this time".) No attribution to Islamists. No, it doesn't go in the list. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:58, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:CRYSTAL, nothing is added to articles (or lists) until reliable sources actually consistently report on established facts. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:32, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Alright, see you tomorrow then with the new articles that are more clear. DaxDupont (talk) 22:17, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

The attacker yelled Allahu Akbar; ISIL have claimed responsibility for the attack. Jim Michael (talk) 14:33, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Allahu Akbar; Now I'm a Muslim, oh wait, I'm not, I'm still an atheist. The actual reason I am commenting; DaxDupont, it won't be that much clearer tomorrow, maybe in a couple weeks, the key thing to remember is that Wikipedia is not a news organization and that we're always behind the ball. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:39, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Who, other than an Islamic terrorist, would carry out an attack whilst yelling Allahu Akbar? Jim Michael (talk) 14:46, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Jim Michael, an angry, deranged, loner without a cause and no will to live (for example). Who otherwise chooses to proclaim allegiance to ISIL not out of any connection with them, but, because their cause is plastered all over the news. Have you kept up with the news about attackers who have absolutely no affiliation with the group and who are Muslim only by birth and not by faith. Or. Somebody who wants to generate a casus belli against Islam (has happened before, e.g. Russia attacking its own city (Mainila) to generate a casus belli against Finland in 1939 springs so fast into my mind), I think this has also happened with ISIL but am not sure when and where, so, WP:OR applies again. Yes it's a rather soft argument (to some extent), but, it really doesn't matter either way. Why? because WP:OR, you drew your own conclusion about the attack and not the ones provided (of which there are none yet), and again WP:NOTNEWS. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:55, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Sub-comment; I'm not saying its not Islamic terrorism, just, that we don't have enough evidence (three scattered reports and not one mention of "Islamic terrorism", terrorism yes, Allahu Akbar yes, but, no mention of specifically and in quotations "Islamic terrorism"). I personally have to reel in my biases here, and say, that while my initial reaction to any such attack is "ISIL again", the reality is, it may not be. There was an attack in Munich recently that was labelled Islamic terrorism in the immediate aftermath and later discovered to be completely unrelated to Islamism let alone Islamic terrorism. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:02, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

The attacker shouted Allahu Akbar? Oh, well, that's conclusive proof that'd stand up in court, then, never mind enough for a WP article! As conclusive as when it was shouted in this attack, even! Seriously. WP:NOTNEWS. WP:NORUSH. The attack is still under investigation. If there's conclusive evidence that it was Islamist terrorism, it will be published. When it's published, it will be reported upon. Then it can be included. Not before. This isn't hard. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:57, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Incidentally, Jim Michael, I don't know why you refactored many of the section headings on this page, but you're here long enough to know that you shouldn't. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:57, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

It was 22nd July, Mr rnddude. Even while the attack was still ongoing and a suspected attacker was still at large, someone was on here wondering if it should be included in this article. Because ISIL, y'know? As you know, no, it wasn't Islamist terrorism at all. That, Jim, is why we wait until multiple reliable sources confirm (or not) that a particular attack was (or was not) Islamist terrorism. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:16, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

There was a lot of contradictory/false info in MSM reporting of the 2016 Munich shootings during the first few days, including: number of victims, number of shooters, the shooter's name and ethnicity, the shooter's politics and/or religion (or lack of it). There are no such issues regarding yesterday's attack in Charleroi. We don't know the attacker's name yet but all the info released so far has been clear. Jim Michael (talk) 16:59, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Jim Michael, that is exactly the point. "We don't know the attacker's identity yet", so how the hell do we know he's 1. a Muslim, 2. affiliated with a terrorist organization, and 3. affiliated specifically with an Islamist terrorist organization. We don't, hence, it is not included here. So yes, there are indeed such issues regarding the attack in Charleroi, if we don't know who the attacker is then we cannot assess their motive for the attack. We don't have a motive, so how exactly do we known why they did it? because ISIL said so? ISIL claims every attack against anybody who is not a Muslim (a good Muslim, bad Muslims are no better than apostates and their definition of a bad Muslim is so broad that the only Muslims that are good are ISIL themselves), that's literally part of their MO. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:12, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

We know he was Algerian, so it's highly unlikely that he wasn't a Muslim. Jim Michael (talk) 17:45, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Right, so, at best, we've met condition 1. That leaves two other conditions that are yet to be met and both require that we know the attacker's motive (which we don't) and that the sources declare it to be Islamic terrorism, which, they don't and can't because the investigation is yet to be complete. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:50, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

He was killed at the scene, so we'll be relying on reports of what (if anything) he wrote and/or said about his beliefs/plans. Jim Michael (talk) 19:11, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

The same kind of reasoning has been argued multiple times on this page, and shot down multiple times as OR/SYNTH. Including in the thread immediately preceding this one. The inclusion decision is easy if you understand and follow Wikipedia policy, and it gets very, very complicated if you do not. We simply look for a sufficient number of sufficiently reliable sources calling it Islamic terrorism in their own voices. The only legitimate debate is about the definition of "sufficient". ―Mandruss ☎ 19:34, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

It's being investigated as terrorism. Jim Michael (talk) 20:01, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I'll take your word for that, and I'll read you literally. Two problems. Terrorism is not Islamic terrorism, and "investigated as" is not "is". It would not even be enough to show that "authorities believe it was Islamic terrorism", the sources must state that unequivocally in their own voices. Or, at the very least, something to the effect of "authorities have shown that it was Islamic terrorism", showing that the sources accept and endorse the conclusion of the authorities. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:04, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Jim Michael, I don't know whether you remember the Oklahoma City bombing in the United States. In the days after the bombing, the TV news (and to a lesser extent the print media) were full of "experts" explaining that it was clearly the work of Middle Eastern terrorists because of its supposed similarities to attacks there. It was, in fact, a pair of white American Christians with no ties to the Middle East were responsible, and the use of fertilizer bombs is not common in terrorist attacks in the Middle East. On most stories, but especially those that are emotionally charged, the media's first report rarely gets it right. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:34, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

It's the same old situation where there may be a hybrid motive of mental health problems and religious extremism. As for ISIL's claim of responsibility, these are so frequent as to be worthless.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:57, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Formatting / "Totals"

Hi, I was looking at this list and noticed some issues. I thought it might be easy if we can add a "Total" besides deaths/injuries, but rather total amounts of Islamist Terror Attacks. Plus, the 2015 & 2016 sections really need to be fixed as in formatting. As you can see, from 1980-2014, they are formatted in tables, can we do that with 2015, I understand that 2016 is still in progress because it is only August, although it did fly by fast, and it could be hard to work with a table when these lists are constantly being added to, and this list, it's just so unfortunate that it's being added to so rapidly. Including the other lists of terrorist attacks. I watched as the lists went from yearly lists (Like the 2006 list, for example, to the "January-June" and "July-December," but watched them vanished and turn into monthly lists. But, back on topic, is it possible we can add/edit these in?

Thanks much! --JamesPhoenix3001 (talk) 15:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 August 2016

The attack of 14 July in Nice, France seems to be missing. It is on the French page however (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_d%27attaques_terroristes_islamistes)

87.214.36.182 (talk) 12:39, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done - please see Talk:List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_26_July_2016_-_Add_entries_below_please_-_Safeguard_the_truth and the most recent archive. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:09, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 July 2016 - Add entries below please - Safeguard the truth

Ubertroll666 (talk) 12:39, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Entries to add:

---

France July 14, 2016 - 84 people were killed when a islamic terrorist drove a truck through the crowds watching the French National Day's firework in Nice. Germany July 17, 2016 - 5 people were injured when an islamic IS fanatic attacked them on a train with an axe and a knife. Germany July 22, 2016 - 9 people were shot and more were injured after they were lured to a shopping mall by a muslim terrorist. Afghanistan July 23, 2016 - 80 people were killed and 200 injured by an islamic suicide bomber targeting a mass demonstration in Kabul.

France July 26, 2016 - A priest was killed when 2 assailants attacked a church in Seine-Maritime.

 Not done provide sources alongside your claim otherwise it won't be included in the article. Also, please remember to sign your post with four tildes (~) in succession. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:19, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

If only we could make a trap for these doomed edit requests...something at the top of the page that says:

If you want something added to this list with zero sources please leave a comment here [Insert page no one is ever going to look at.] This is especially the place to leave your request if you would like an edit completed because Wikipedia is biased and a cabal of editors are conspiring to keep the truth away from the public.

Then we set up an archive bot to remove anything older than ten seconds. TimothyJosephWood 14:13, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I support this proposal. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:16, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Meh. Any new instructions would be missed or ignored far more often than not. We're not spending a lot of time on  Not done responses. And their temporary presence on this page probably serves to inform and deter some others—about as many as the new instructions would inform and deter. Main difference: added complexity. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:32, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Although it says there are no links to the IS group, this article calls the attack the 3rd Islamist terror attack in France in the last 18 months: [3]. This article says he was radicalized quickly: [4]. Our Wikipedia article on the Nice event calls it Islamist terror. I believe we should be consistent. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:15, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

No, our Wikipedia article states that others have called it Islamic terrorism. Others have also stated that the perp wasn't a Muslim, so... Ultimately, WP:NORUSH. As and when further information emerges (which is likely in this case given arrests and impending prosecution) it can be included, or not, as appropriate. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:08, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Terrorists are always described as not being Muslims by other Muslims. The discussion should not be if he was a "true" Muslim in the eyes of other Muslims. It comes all down to the motives. Just because he was a "bad" Muslim (drinking, drugs, women) doesn't mean that he can't be an Islamic extremist. By this logic you could say that right-wing extremist who eat kebab can not be considered as right-wing extremist because they violated their believes. Arcadius Romanus (talk) 23:41, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:NORUSH. The event is all of 18 days old. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper, and that is not changed by the fact that we have the technology to publish updates in seconds. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:55, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Arcadius, people weren't saying "Islam is a religion of peace, therefore no true Muslim would..."; they were saying that the perpetrator wasn't a member of a Mosque and indulged in many practices that are haram. So there's a big difference. It's very much related to the way Anders Breivik's attack isn't included in the Christian terrorism article - because he wasn't a Christian. Sorry, the second part of your argument makes no sense to me. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:17, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

The second part makes no sense to you because you didn't understand the first part. That he wasn't a member of a Mosque and indulged in many practices that are haram is exactly my point. These are no requirements for someone to be considered an Islamic terrorists. It is all about his motives and not about how others viewed him or how strictly he followed the rules of Islam. Many IS fighters violate the rules of Islam but they are still considered Islamic terrorists. An Islamic extremists can pick the things about Islam he believes/acts on and can disregard other parts completely. Anders Breivik is not a good comparison. If he would have had contact to Christian extremists and if he would have had extremists Christian propaganda on his computer than he should absolutely be added to the list. But he didn't so the case is different. His attack was a right wring terror attack, this one is a Islamic terror attack. Arcadius Romanus (talk) 23:54, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Have a substantial number of reliable sources called him an Islamic terrorist, or called the attack Islamic terrorism, in their own voices? If so, please include those links. If not, all this is OR/SYNTH. All the reasoning in the world will not change Wikipedia policy. Bastun, I feel you are encouraging and perpetuating this OR/SYNTH by engaging it. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:01, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I provided sources above, and the main article contains many additional high quality sources. Bottom line - sources have called this an Islamist terror attack. If there is an additional policy reason why it shouldn't be included now, that's fine, but please clearly state it. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:43, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Bastun replied above, No, our Wikipedia article states that others have called it Islamic terrorism. You did not respond to that, so I assumed Bastun was correct. Then the discussion digressed into more irrelevant OR/SYNTH. Hence my preceding comment. At this point (in my opinion) we should collapse the OR/SYNTH, beginning with 23:41, 1 August 2016, as pointless noise, and you should respond to Bastun or concede this issue until new reporting changes the picture. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:58, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Re the above, you-all seem to be using "Islamic" and "Islamist" interchangeably. "Islamist terrorism" would be terrorism claimed in the name of Islam - i.e. it's about the perpetrator's intentions rather than anyone else's ideas of Islam. "Islamic terrorism", on the other hand, is fuzzier as to what kind of connection it's making between the particular act and Islam/Muslims: it could mean terrorism by anyone who considers themself a Muslim, or terrorism with some kind of Islamic symbols involved (even tangentially), or even terrorism perpetrated by anyone against a mosque, for example. "Islamist" seems the more correct term for most of what you're talking about here. 94.207.145.171 (talk) 10:44, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Just putting this out there. Of course WP articles aren't reliable sources, but at the same time this is a list, and not an article, it's basically a glorified category. So it seems that if there is a consensus to be had as to whether this is an Islamist attack, that consensus is on the main article, and not on the list. The list should then defer to the consensus reached on the article. TimothyJosephWood 21:12, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

And I would note that the infobox at the top of 2016 Nice attack doesn't say what the motivation was, nor does the lead section. The article is in two terrorism-related categories, but none related to Islamist terrorism. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:27, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Malik Shabazz, I wonder if we couldn't get a robust consensus on this point and link to it at the top of the page...Some sort of notice to the effect of "Please do not post requests to add entries to this list unless they have already been stably identified, per consensus on the main article, as an Islamist Terrorist Attack." TimothyJosephWood 14:45, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

By all means, ask other editors what they think. My opinion is that the Wikipedia article about an incident is a good reference point -- but not determinative -- about whether it belongs in this list. And, of course, it's usually a good place to find reliable sources with which to make such a determination. I continue to think our "long-standing" criteria work pretty well: if reliable sources refer to an incident as a terrorist attack and attribute it to Islamists or a known Islamist organization, it goes in the list. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:44, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Isn't it sufficient that Dabiq claims the Nice attack, to warrant it's inclusion here - it's mentioned a few times in Dabiq Issue 15.82.40.105.78 (talk) 00:32, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Dabiq (magazine) is a propaganda magazine for ISIL, a sort of extremist Islamic version of Der Stürmer. ISIL has a history of claiming responsibility for all sorts of things that they had nothing to do with. "ISIL says" should not become a game of Simon Says. The benchmark for including an attack in this article is what investigators have said about it in reliable sources.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:20, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2016

176.184.78.94 (talk) 09:31, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 11:15, 9 September 2016 (UTC)