Jump to content

Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

No 2009?

Is there a reason there is no chart for 2009 attacks like the Little Rock shooting and Fort Hood shooting?

Salocin.nosjack (talk) 23:51, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

'The U.S. government declined requests from survivors and family members of the slain to categorize the Fort Hood shooting as an act of terrorism, or motivated by militant Islamic religious convictions.' (source; wikipedia) so it wasn't islamic terrorism because the US Army said so. Just workplace violence. Dean1954 (talk) 15:32, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

2007, Yazidis

One also may add the massacres on the Yazidi people, for instance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Yazidi_communities_bombings. Almost 800 dead people. 78.49.158.87 (talk) 01:14, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Missing big attacks

1995 Budyonnovsk hospital crisis and 2002 Moscow opera crisis are missing. Both them happend in Russia with deaths and injured in hundreds. Soerenhartwigsen (talk) 14:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Can you provide some sources for them? It would also be helpful if you could provide the description text. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:45, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 Not done for now: @Soerenhartwigsen: To properly request this edit, you need to provide the exact text you want inserted, i.e. "please add the following text" rather than "please mention this subject". Also, provide reliable sources for it. Once you've done all that, reactivate this request. Gaioa (T C L) 18:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2021

the world trade center bombings did not happen in february 1993. 2601:186:4501:6FA0:E9AE:2DF9:39BA:6767 (talk) 20:45, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The 1993 World Trade Center bombing did occur in February 1993. Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 02:54, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2021

Add the Pulwama bombing that took place on 14th of February, 2019 in Pulwama, Jammu and Kashmir. This was a suicide bombing on a military convoy, and was claimed by Pakistan based militant group Jaish-e-Mohammad. 40 soldiers were martyred in this attack so it is major enough to qualify. 45.121.189.96 (talk) 08:34, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:14, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

2019 pulwama terrorist attack

On 14th February 2019, an islamic terrorist attack happened in pulwama in kashmir. There is no mention of this attack on this page. The attack was carried out by islamic terrorist organisation jaish e muhammad. GodBond (talk) 09:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

We need sources. Also, attacks on Indian armed forces in Kashmir are more connected with the Kashmiri independence struggle than with Islamism. — kashmīrī TALK 15:53, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

July 28, 2014 Xinjiang terror attacks

The link doesn't work. Would it be possible to find another one ? I found this link for instance : https://time.com/3078381/china-xinjiang-violence-shache-yarkand/— Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.19.215.193 (talk) 10:49, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

HyperCacher Kosher Supermarket siege (January 9th, 2015)

This attack is already on Wikipedia, why not here ? Thanks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypercacher_kosher_supermarket_siege

More info: Four victims: three shoppers and an employee, were killed on January 9, 2015 at the Hyper Cacher supermarket in eastern Paris by gunman Amédy Coulibaly. § https://www.huffpost.com/entry/kosher-market-hostages-killed-paris-amedy-coulibaly_n_6444404 https://twitter.com/hashtag/HyperCacher?src=hashtag_click — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zibibbo789 (talk • contribs) 12:15, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Moscow Theater (2002)

Is there a reason why this event Moscow theater hostage crisis is not included?

Yeah Russia was attacked by the Chechnya's Muslims who were part of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria, I see no reason why it shouldn't be on the list. Try and add it 72.33.2.211 (talk) 18:45, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Greece/Pakistan and France 1985-6

I don't think the first two should be included because Black September was a nationalist secular group with some christians in it (like Lutif Afif). And neither the France 1985-6 bombings because they were mostly done by a coalition of different groups (including LARF and ASALA) to gain the liberation George Ibrahim Abdullah (a Maronite communist). 2A02:842A:86FE:5601:A9A3:492E:811A:94E8 (talk) 09:59, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

France, January 11, 2023

There is no evidence in the supplied reference for the description: "A man "screaming Allahu Akbar" attacked passers-by in the Gare du Nord", nor is there any mention of Islamic terrorism. In fact, the article states: "the attacker, who has been taken to hospital with life-threatening injuries, had said nothing during the attack", and "Asked about possible terrorist motives, Darmanin said a criminal investigation had been opened but that so far no investigation for terrorism had been opened". 134.238.30.178 (talk) 04:36, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, the Reuters cite doesn't verify this as an Islamist terrorist attack, so in accordance with the page guidelines, I've removed it.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:56, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2023

IS has claimed responsibility for the recent bombing in DR Congo. January 15th 2023. At least 14 dead and dozens injured. 2601:601:447F:5CE0:0:0:0:50A8 (talk) 16:20, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:43, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Pan Am Flight 103

Pan Am Flight 103 was a regularly scheduled Pan Am transatlantic flight from Frankfurt to Detroit via London and New York City. On 21 December 1988, Clipper Maid of the Seas (N739PA), the aircraft operating the transatlantic leg of the route, was destroyed by a bomb, killing all 243 passengers and 16 crew, in what became known as the Lockerbie bombing. Large sections of the aircraft crashed onto a residential street in Lockerbie, Scotland, killing 11 people on the ground. With a total of 270 fatalities, it is the deadliest terrorist attack in the history of the United Kingdom.

[1]

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_103

12th May 2019

Africa on 12th May, 2019(Sunday) :- Gunmen(number between 20 and 30) have killed six people including a priest as Mass was being celebrated in a church in Dablo in northern Burkina Faso in Africa and burned down the church. Jihadist violence has flared in Burkina Faso since 2016, and this is the third attack on a church in five weeks. Last month, attackers targeted a Protestant church in the town of Silgadji, killing at least six people And earlier in April, four people died when a Catholic church was attacked in a nearby village, the bishop of Dori in northern Burkina Faso told Vatican news agency Fides.- www.bbc.com

The Munich Massacre

Exuse me but there has been a gross misundersanding of about the Munich Massacre, Black September was a secular nationalist group with some christian members in it, the man who led the attack was Luttif afif who was himself a christian arab and he called the attack: Operation "Iqrit and Biram", after two Palestinian Christian villages whose inhabitants were expelled by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. 2A02:842A:86FE:5601:20B2:27F3:E4D0:EE26 (talk) 08:56, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

There is some truth in this. The Black September Organization was a splinter group of Palestinian militants rather than an Islamist group in the sense often used to describe religious extremists.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:25, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Lead

The article is being considered for deletion. I don't have an opinion on that matter (at least not yet—I don't expect to, but don't promise never to). However, I think that as it stands the lead section needs work. My thinking relates to WP:SALLEAD & MOS:FIRST. The beginning of the former reads (I've added numerals for easier reference):

A stand-alone list should begin with a lead section that (1) summarizes its content, (2) provides any necessary background information, (3) gives encyclopedic context, (4) links to other relevant articles, and (5) makes direct statements about the criteria by which members of the list were selected, unless inclusion criteria are unambiguously clear from the article title.

This lead contains background information that seems appropriate for Islamic terrorism, but is questionably fitting for (2). I don't know what (3) means, really, for this guideline. I think this fails on the other counts, most especially (1) & (5).

MOS:FIRST begins:

The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where. It should be in plain English.

I don't think this does that (which overlaps with [1] above), either.

Given the nature of the deletion dispute, I wonder if it might be useful to resolving the debate & to avoiding future confusion to develop a lead sentence that better summarised the list's contents & addressed inclusion criteria. Terrorism is not my usual area of editing, & I probably won't have much to contribute. I hope that this comment is useful, & I apologise to more regular editors in the area if it's a distraction rather than a contribution. Pathawi (talk) 07:31, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Incidentally, I think that List of thwarted Islamic terrorist attacks (also being considered for deletion) as it stands right now does a better job as a list article lead. I'm sure it could be improved, but it's a far better fit for the content guidelines. Pathawi (talk) 07:34, 31 July 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. TarnishedPathtalk 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. TarnishedPathtalk 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. TarnishedPathtalk 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. TarnishedPathtalk 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. TarnishedPathtalk 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. TarnishedPathtalk 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. TarnishedPathtalk 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. TarnishedPathtalk 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? TarnishedPathtalk 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. TarnishedPathtalk 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? TarnishedPathtalk 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. TarnishedPathtalk 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". TarnishedPathtalk 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. TarnishedPathtalk 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 attackers motives are well documented, see September 11 attacks. Sources from that article can be added here for clarity. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:02, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

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". TarnishedPathtalk 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. TarnishedPathtalk 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. TarnishedPathtalk 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. TarnishedPathtalk 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. TarnishedPathtalk 00:45, 5 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. TarnishedPathtalk 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. TarnishedPathtalk 11:24, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
"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)
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)
@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. TarnishedPathtalk 07:09, 12 September 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. TarnishedPathtalk 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. TarnishedPathtalk 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. TarnishedPathtalk 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? TarnishedPathtalk 11:33, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Also WP:RS. TarnishedPathtalk 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. TarnishedPathtalk 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. TarnishedPathtalk 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. TarnishedPathtalk 03:04, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2023

The 7th of October Attacks on Israel by Hamas in 2023. This slaughter was performed while calling on Allah and was done to kill jews and had nothing to do with a so called “freedom fight”. 88.118.11.157 (talk) 17:34, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: ongoing RFC about this above, feel free to participate Cannolis (talk) 17:39, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
@Cannolis, no they shouldn't participate. They're not EC. TarnishedPathtalk 02:10, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Incidents for consideration of inclusion

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

Citations which would be used for each? TarnishedPathtalk 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)
Everything that is properly categorized under Category:Islamic terrorist incidents or its subcategories belongs in this list. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:03, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Please refer to WP:RSPWP TarnishedPathtalk 14:35, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
TarnishedPath, you need to stop with the spurious referrals to WP:RSPWP. If an article is properly categorized under Category:Islamic terrorist incidents it will contain references to RSs that support its inclusion is that category. Jweiss11 (talk) 14:39, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
You presume that all articles that are templated in that category are properly done so. Again Wikipedia is not a reliable source per WP:RSPWP. I can't believe I'm having this discussion with you. TarnishedPathtalk 14:48, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
I said "Everything that is properly categorized". If something is improperly categorized there, then it doesn't belong in this list and it should be removed from the category. This is getting pretty tiresome. Jweiss11 (talk) 15:53, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Riyadh compound bombings

I've added two new sources for the listing of Riyadh compound bombings, from CNN and CTC Sentinel. Both characterize the bombings as terrorist attacks attributed to Al-Qaeda. TarnishedPath has tagged these with Template:Better source needed with the claim that the sources don't explicitly state that Al-Qaeda is Islamist. I think that fact falls under Wikipedia:BLUESKY. Has Al-Qaeda committed any non-Islamist terror attacks? Jweiss11 (talk) 06:00, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

It depends. Attacks against non-combatants by terrorist organisations are almost always considered acts of terror. Attacks against combatants (military installations, police, etc.) in the context of an armed conflict are sometimes decried by the victim as "terrorism", yet are legitimate hostilities in the light of the Law of War. Each case must be judged on its own merit. — kashmīrī TALK 07:56, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
In this situation I can see the application of WP:BLUESKY. I did end up removing one of the citations as it did not even mention the attack. The narrative leaving off at a point when the attacks were imminent. However I'm not going to buy into arguments above for a broader application of WP:BLUESKY when there is there is no consensus from worldwide governments or WP:RS that Hamas is a terrorist organisation. TarnishedPathtalk 09:26, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
The BLUESKY I'm suggesting here is not to substantiate "terrorist". I agree that "terrorist" needs to be explicitly supported by the sources for each act. I'm arguing that BLUESKY can be used to substantiate "Islamist" where the organization in question is widely defined as Islamist in other reliable sources. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:21, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
widely defined as Islamist in other reliable sources. Well, one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter as they say – e.g., the Taliban were freedom fighters when they fought the Russians, and terrorists when they fought the US. That's what so-called "reliable media" said.
Given that the term "Islamism" is contentious and has multiple definitions (see article and countless discussions at Talk there), and considering the traditionally blurry borderline between national and religious struggle in many parts of the world, I'd be extremely cautions with using value-laden labels on Wikipedia. — kashmīrī TALK 08:21, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
@Kashmiri, I think Islamist has a fairly consistent definition from source to source. I think the difficulty is that there are plenty of editors who see Islamist and automatically read Islamic. Islamic simply meaning to pertain to Islam, whereas Islamist has fundamentalist and political connotations. Read the definitions that I give from a couple of sources at Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks#RfC (What should the selection criteria be for an entry to be included in the List of Islamist terrorist attacks?) TarnishedPathtalk 12:19, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Taliban was formed almost 5 years after the dissolution of the Soviet Union! Parham wiki (talk) 13:30, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Should Hamas Suicide Bombings (Pre Gaza Takeover) be included in the list of Islamist Terrorist attacks?


The fight over the October 7th terrorists attacks has nothing to do with this because this was before Hamas Terrorists tookover the Gaza Strip

If I don't see a response by Monday I'm going to assume that the consensus is that they are terrorists attacks, and post them in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yestyest2000 (talk • contribs) 23:18, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Yestyest2000, that's not how consensus works on Wikipedia. Can you please refer to the selection criteria at the top of the page and for each entry being proposed address how it meets the selection criteria, specifically the third criterion, 'The consensus of reliable sources describe the incident as "terrorism"'. TarnishedPathtalk 00:23, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
There are plenty of sources that show these Suicide Bombings are all terrorism, and I will post them with them then (as well as the October 7th terrorist attack which every non antisemitic source admits as one). The fight over these suicide terrorists attacks are completely different from the October 7th terrorists attacks, due to the fact that many of the lies that people here are claiming in order to exclude the October 7th terrorist attack do not factually apply there.
The biggest example of this is Hamas had zero control of Gaza at the time these attacks happened. Their charter still officially called for the death of all Jews. These attacks were almost all exclusively Hamas attacks. This was not called an operation. All these factors take away most of the stated (false) objections to labeling the October 7th terrorist attacks.
According to the actual rules of Wikipedia I don't even have to wait for the consensus here because there was never an objection stated for these suicide terrorist attacks, only a similar but different terrorist attack. I was only putting it here to see if anyone had any objections to see if there was any opposing view. So far there is zero opposition (you didn't object to what I plan to post, only ). If the lack of an actual objection comes, I will assume there is no objection to calling these terrorist attacks as such, based on the sources I will list. If you have an objection please explicitly state it now, or We'll get it after I post it on the article, when the antisemites come out to play. Yestyest2000 (talk) 04:10, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
I'm not active on this article or Talk page, but it's really not safe to consider that consensus. You are right that you don't need consensus to edit boldly, but you'd be wasting your time on an article this contentious: Your edits will be reverted (not by me—this is just easy to predict), & you'll end up back on the Talk page anyhow. By presuming in advance that anyone who disagrees with you is an anti-Semite, you're likely to get accused of operating from a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality & thus not assuming good faith. If a particular 2003 attack hasn't been on this page for twenty years, three more days isn't going to make a difference.
I watch this page for vandalism. I don't know anything about these attacks, don't intend to learn more about them, & don't plan to participate in discussion of whether or not they should be included. Pathawi (talk) 05:05, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Yestyest2000, yes any terrorist attack attributed to Hamas, which is an Islamist org, belongs on this list. Please include sourcing that establishes those two points: 1) described as terrorist act and 2) attributed to Hamas. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:57, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
@Jweiss11, I'll refer you to the current list criteria at the top of this page, which was decided by an RfC. The inclusion criteria is not that you can find sourcing "that establishes those two points: 1) described as terrorist act and 2) attributed to Hamas."
The inclusion criteria for this list is:
  • The incident is notable
  • The incident has a corresponding stand-alone Wikipedia article
  • The consensus of reliable sources describe the incident as "terrorism"
Anything that doesn't meet that list criteria doesn't belong on this list. TarnishedPathtalk 06:14, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Every one of those incidents has a corresponding stand-alone Wikipedia article and can therefore be presumed notable until successfully deleted at AfD. Your faux-disagreement with me here over the relevant criteria is functionally meaningless, but certainly took up a lot of space! Jweiss11 (talk) 06:21, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
@Jweiss11, please refer to the last criterion. It's quite a bit different to 'Please include sourcing that describes it as a terrorist act'. TarnishedPathtalk 06:36, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Hamas bad isn't an argument for list inclusion. If you want an attack to be included on this list it should meet the inclusion criteria. Given the attacks you've suggested all have stand alone pages, we can safely assume they all meet the first two criterion, i.e. that they are notable and have stand alone pages. However in order for any of them to fully meet the list criteria they would need to meet the final criterion being that 'The consensus of reliable sources describe the incident as "terrorism"', not just that you can find a handful of sources that agrees with your POV. I'd suggest you take @Pathawi's advice onboard because so far your use of language displays a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. TarnishedPathtalk 06:02, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Hamas bad isn't the argument and saying that is a straw man point.
Hamas is Islamic by their own charter so it meets the Islamic half.
And a Suicide Bombing by a non state actor is clearly terrorism (and there are numerous sources that say that these specific acts are terrorism). These Suicide Bombing terrorists attacks avoid almost all the claimed reasons for those opposing labeling the October 7th terrorists attacks as such (with the main argument that Hamas being a "state actor", but these terrorist attacks were way before that, so the main argument falls away, as do many of the other stated claims for different reasons).
I want to make it very clear that not including any attack in Israel by Islamic terrorists is a bigger violation of the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view rule than including it.
There are only 3 possible reasons one doesn't consider these suicide bombings a terrorist attack.
1. they are not aware of the facts.
2. they think that there is no should be no such thing as labeling terrorism on Wikipedia, so this entire article should be deleted.
3. They hate Jews.
Since Wikipedia policy is to Wikipedia:Assume good faith, I first must assume that no one will challenge the obvious truth, and if they do I then must assume option one. However if and when an editor has proven their antisemitism all bets are off. We will see if those claiming to oppose October 7th for reasons that don't apply to the Hamas Terrorism of the Second Intifada holds true. Since I'm required to assume good faith, I'm must assume that they will not change their already stated reasons, because if they betray my faith, I will pull up their old posts and expose their hypocrisy.
Wikipedia policy of Ignore all rules certainly should be followed here anyways, especially when there isn't even a rule that has been broken yet, only a preemptive warning by someone who already has a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality.
I don't have a BATTLEGROUND mentality, but I am prepared for it, if people challenge the obvious truth. Yestyest2000 (talk) 06:47, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
@Yestyest2000, given the tone of your communications so far, I suggest you make yourself fully aware of the general sanctions which cover the topic area which you are proposing to edit in. They can be found at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4#ARBPIA General Sanctions. TarnishedPathtalk 06:42, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
There is a war going on. Tempers are high, people on various sides feel that some significant portion of the world refuses to see their lives as valuable, their deaths as mournable.
It is obviously not a coincidence that this conversation about Hamas or Hamas-related activities is happening right now.
Whatever the result of the current debate is, the contents of this article will have no significant impact on what happens in Gaza. It will save no lives. It will bring no one back. It will undermine no combatant.
Wikipedia operates at an encyclopædia's pace—not a newspaper's.
Preparing for conflict leads to conflict. Pathawi (talk) 07:06, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
you write "Wikipedia operates at an encyclopædia's pace—not a newspaper's."
Well it is over 20 years since most of these attacks listed here happened, and Wikipedia still didn't cover it, this is not an encyclopedia's pace, but way slower than chiseling an encyclopedia into granite.
And you are wrong disinformation campaigns leads to dead people.
I expect conflict regardless of my attitude, the conflict was all over this talk page before I got here. I'm following the Wikipedia:Assume good faith by treating every single member who I argue with (until proven otherwise) as someone who is acting in good faith and will act like they are from the super-minority who may be misguided by propaganda. It would be beyond probability, if the most hated group in history, didn't have those who hate them as Wikipedia editors also. And people who hate Jews will likely not want this labeled as a terrorist attack. Yestyest2000 (talk) 08:49, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
"will act like they are from the super-minority who may be misguided by propaganda". I would suggest language like this isn't very helpful if you were assuming good faith. TarnishedPathtalk 08:58, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
This all falls under Palestinian political violence, not (Islamist) terrorism. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:56, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Some might say part of nationalist struggles between two opposing sides. I would suggest there is plenty of WP:RS that would attest to that and that meeting the list criteria might not be so straight forward in this contentious topic area. TarnishedPathtalk 09:02, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Hamas is 100% Islamist calling it Palestinian (meaning nationalistic) can only done by someone who never read their charter (and their charter was only changed in 2017 over a decade after these events)
and since Wikipedia:Assume good faith demands that i treat you as such
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp
just a few one of many examples in their charter proving this Hamas is 100% Islamic
"Article Eight:
Allah is its target, the Prophet is its model, the Koran its constitution: Jihad is its path and death for the sake of Allah is the loftiest of its wishes.
And now that you were corrected and since I assume your mistaken statement was because you were acting Wikipedia:Assume good faith, therefore since your objection is now gone because you were acting in Wikipedia:Assume good faith. I will still write it Monday, because now you must agree it is Islamic. Yestyest2000 (talk) 15:26, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
@Yestyest2000, given your attitude and threats I've added the ARBPIA General Sanctions notification to the top of this page. Please familiarise yourself with it. @ScottishFinnishRadish, FYI. TarnishedPathtalk 07:55, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
The 2017 charter, the one in use now, is more pertinent. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:34, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
I've just gone through that whole list of articles and only five call the attacks terrorist acts in article voice by my counting. They are Dolphinarium discotheque massacre, Nahariya train station suicide bombing, Passover massacre, Dizengoff Center suicide bombing and Café Hillel bombing. Some of the claims are disputed, such as whether the attacker was an Islamist afiliated with Hamas and in other cases the use of language is very sloppy in the way people are called terrorist. Not once was a citation used directly after a claim of terrorism/terrorist/terror, which I would expect per MOS:TERRORIST. Per usual anyone can say back that Wikipedia is not a reliable source but if the editors of most of those articles aren't confident enough to use the term terrorism/terrorist/terror in article voice or use appropriate citations in other cases where such claims are made then I don't have high confidence for any of these incidents being included in this list. TarnishedPathtalk 09:58, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Assume good faith demands that you also assume I'm working in good faith and will easily prove that these terrorist attacks were terrorists attacks.
Suicide bombing of targeted civilians by a non state actor, for a stated Islamic reason, is clearly Islamic terrorism.
and they are all labeled terrorism multiple times, since this template is on the page.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Terrorist_attacks_against_Israelis_in_the_2000s Yestyest2000 (talk) 16:18, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
you said those articles don't mention terrorism, butyou yourself edited out the word terrorism in at least one of them a few minutes before your comment to take out the word terrorism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mike%27s_Place_suicide_bombing&diff=next&oldid=1185513402
Awaiting your explanation?
(talk) 16:31, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Notably after you reverted my edit you were reverted by an admin. The admin, in their edit summary, referenced the same policy as I did in their revert being MOS:TERRORIST. Are you going to ask that admin for an explanation also? I'd highly recommend you read MOS:TERRORIST. TarnishedPathtalk 07:59, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 December 2023

Add the October 7th, 2023 Hamas attack on Israel which killed approximately 1200 people, mostly civilians 142.126.150.54 (talk) 16:03, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Shadow311 (talk) 16:32, 11 December 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. TarnishedPathtalk 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. TarnishedPathtalk 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. TarnishedPathtalk 06:43, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
TarnishedPath, I know Wikipedia cannot be sourced to itself. I've been editing here for two decades. The articles in question are loaded with citations to relevant sources. Those are the sources I'm talking about. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:50, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Ps, where did you find the endash on a keyboard? TarnishedPathtalk 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 TarnishedPathtalk 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. TarnishedPathtalk 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)
We include them if RS back the definition. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 17:50, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
What definition? Selfstudier (talk) 18:03, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Islamist terrorist attack. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 17:21, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
That's a phrase not a definition. Selfstudier (talk) 17:45, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Agree. DFlhb (talk) 11:52, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

RfC (What should the selection criteria be for an entry to be included in the List of Islamist terrorist attacks?)

PROPOSAL FAILED
Wikipedia has a List of Islamist terrorist attacks, and this RfC is an attempt to set out a logical, consistent set of criteria to decide what amounts to an Islamist terrorist attack. All three of those words, "Islamist", "terrorist", and "attack", are potentially contentious labels, but the community doesn't take issue with TarnishedPath's admirably clear and source-based definition of "Islamist", and nobody quibbles "attack".
The proposal to define "terrorist" in terms of a consensus of reliable sources is widely contested. Some contributors to this discussion point out that some reliable sources' editorial policy constrain their use the word "terrorist". Some also object to the phrase "consensus of reliable sources", feeling that it's insufficiently clear or game-able.
It's Wikipedian custom and practice that any decision to enact these criteria must be supported by consensus. There is no such consensus to be found in the discussion below, so the proposed WP:LISTCRITERIA are not enacted.
I hope this helps. Questions, concerns, comments, or complaints about this close are welcome and should be directed to my talk page in the first instance.—S Marshall T/C 15:34, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

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.

Should the WP:LISTCRITERIA for List of Islamist terrorist attacks be:

  1. The consensus of reliable sources describe the incident as "terrorism" in article voice
  2. The same reliable sources make it clear that there were Islamist motivations as per dictionary definitions of the word Islamist
  3. The incident is Notable and
  4. The incident has a corresponding stand-alone Wikipedia article

For reference:
Google defines Islamist as:

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

Dictionary.com defines Islamist as:

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

TarnishedPathtalk 00:15, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Survey

  • Support as proposer: Criteria #1 and #2 per WP:NOR, WP:V and MOS:TERRORISM. Criteria #3 and #4 per WP:NOT and WP:WTAF. As discussed by the closer of a recent RfC on this list, "it is not clearly defined what an Islamist terrorist attack is for the purposes of this list". The WP:LISTCRITERIA as proposed will remedy that situation. TarnishedPathtalk 00:30, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment Please refer to the header at the top of this page which has information about the current inclusion criteria for List of Islamist terrorist attacks which was determined in this RfC close. TarnishedPathtalk 03:36, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Support or else Merge/redirect with/to List of terrorist incidents as was suggested in this August 2023 deletion discussion. If we are going to keep this list then we need to be very clear about the inclusion criteria. Also suggest setting a minimum number of civilian deaths, say 4, to avoid a potentially lengthy and unwieldy list. Selfstudier (talk) 12:34, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
    @Selfstudier, just to be clear are you supporting what I'm proposing? TarnishedPathtalk 11:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
    Either that or a merge/redirect. Either way is fine by me. If the discussion proceeds in such a way as to dilute the proposal then I would lean merge/redirect. Selfstudier (talk) 11:08, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
    Ok, I better put my comment in the actual RfC question before there's further discussion. Just to make things clear. At the moment it's in the survey. TarnishedPathtalk 11:46, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
    Right, I would put the ABCD thing in as a specific proposal rather than asking a general question and then the rest as part of your !vote. Selfstudier (talk) 11:55, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
    Done. Does that look good? TarnishedPathtalk 12:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
    Better I think, see if anyone else has any suggestions. Selfstudier (talk) 12:13, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
  • (vote subsequently changed, see below) Support, but without the requirement that the RS be the same. That requirement seems to be based on a misunderstanding of SYNTH. As NOTJUSTANYSYNTH explains, "SYNTH is original research by synthesis, not synthesis per se." If one RS says "X is tall" and another, "X has brown hair", we may describe X as "tall person with brown hair". That's just synthesis per se, not OR, and as such it is clearly allowed. Likewise, if an RS describes Y as "terrorist attack" and another describes it as driven by Islamist motivations, we may describe it as "terrorist attack driven by Islamist motivations". That again is just synthesis per se (it follows inevitably and logically from what the RS say), not OR. So there is no good reason for the "same sources" requirement, and it should be dropped. Another, minor issue is that I think the notability criterion could be dropped since the requirement of a stand-alone Wikipedia article effectively incorporates it already, so it's redundant. Gawaon (talk) 18:12, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
    That argument doesn't work, one source might say Islamist but not describe the attack as terrorist and the other the opposite, if you combine the two to say that is Islamist terror, that's synth because I could combine them to equally say it was not either. Selfstudier (talk) 18:18, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
    How? That conclusion could only be true if both RS are wrong. But we assume here they are RS, so presumably correct. And again, how could you derive from different sources saying X was tall and had brown hair, that they were short and black-haired? Gawaon (talk) 18:26, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
    I am not saying that the RS are wrong or right, just what they say, and both conclusions are possible if you synth. Also I am taking the actual subject matter which has two attributes, I do not need to concern myself with X's and their hair. Selfstudier (talk) 18:32, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
    You say "you synth" as if that was a well-defined verb, but it's not. Keep in mind that "SYNTH" is not a standalone page in our ruleset, it's a section in the Wikipedia:No original research policy. Also keep in mind what What SYNTH is not has to say. OR is forbidden, but simple synthesis is expressly allowed and indeed necessary for Wikipedia to work (since every acceptable article has more than one source, and usually some of its statements are backed up by one source, and others by others). I have made my point and will no longer engage in this discussion to prevent it from becoming repetitive. Gawaon (talk) 18:47, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
    Phrase it as you like, I have given you a clear cut reason why the example you gave does not work. Selfstudier (talk) 19:05, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
    Uh? You did in fact refuse the engage with the example I gave at all (for whatever reason I cannot fathom). Gawaon (talk) 20:13, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
    Your example only varies one attribute (tallness) while fixing X and brown hair, try varying two attributes. Selfstudier (talk) 22:56, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
    My example has two not necessarily related attributes (tallness, hair colour), just like the proposal under discussion (terrorist, Islamist). Neither of them "varies" when it comes to RS, at least that was not the assumption. There is no good reason why one case should be treated any differently than the other. And to get back to the original question, BBC, as far as I know, never uses the words "terrorism" or "terrorist" (except in quotes), so it cannot be consulted for the question of whether or not an attack was terrorist – it simply won't say anything about that question. But if a BBC article explains that an attack was motivated by Islamism, why should that statement be inadmissible? Its a RS, and it's pertinent information, so of course we should use it. Gawaon (talk) 10:27, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
    Since I cannot convince you, I give up :) Selfstudier (talk) 11:24, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
    @Gawaon, can you please refer to the sample definitions provided above for Islamist. Not everything that is Islamist is by extension "terrorism". The words have distinct meanings. To try and collapse them into the same thing in wikispace would be original research. TarnishedPathtalk 12:00, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
    Of course these "words have distinct meanings", who would, or did, ever say anything else?? Did you read what I wrote? This not about about the meaning of words, but about not arbitrarily ignoring what RS say. So if RS A describes an event as "terrorist attack" and RS B describes it as an "Islamist attack", so logically, inevitably, it was an "Islamist terrorist attack". That's indisputable, and indeed I don't think anybody has even seriously tried to dispute it so far. So why not recognize it in the wording of the criteria and drop the unjustifiable "same source" condition? Gawaon (talk) 09:57, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
    And if there are 2 RS saying one thing and only one saying the other, why would you not select from the two, rather than selecting one from each group because it suits your argument? The only way to avoid such selectivity is to have sources that include both elements. It is strange indeed to assume that such sources would not exist- Selfstudier (talk) 11:13, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
    I don't understand what you mean by "selectivity" – assuming an already found source says both things then, of course, there is no problem. But requiring this when editors have already found two (or more) sources that together verify both labels without one explicitly using both words in the same text, just puts an additional burden on editors without any good reason whatsoever. How often would that be a problem? I don't know, but I don't think such cases would be all that rare. For example, if a BBC text identifies an attack as Islamic, without describing it as terrorism (since that's against BBC policy), while several other RS describe it is "terrorist" but don't discuss the ideological background (maybe assuming that readers know already). Why should editors then be forced to find yet another source that repeats both these statements in the same text? That's just needless busywork. Gawaon (talk) 18:39, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
    So, if a someone is described as a renowned person by one source and as a painter by another, can we synth it to "renowned painter"? In other words, if Hamas is described as Islamist and one of their attack as terrorism, can we synth to claim that the attack itself was Islamist? — kashmīrī TALK 11:17, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
    I think you could, but I realize that's more problematic and it was not what I was and am arguing for. So let's not confuse things. My argument refers simply to the case where one source describes an attack as Islamist and another one describes the same attack as terrorism. Gawaon (talk) 18:47, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
    Ah, X type arguments are no good now? Selfstudier (talk) 18:51, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
    I just want to say that I echo Gawaon's sentiments on this synth/OR argument completely, and have written at length about this in a recent related but separate discussion. If a RS says that Hamas is an Islamist terrorist organization, and If there is RS also saying that the Oct 7 attack is a Hamas terrorist attack, then I think it's common sense to conclude that the Oct 7 attack is an Islamist terrorist attack. Some editors believe that you need the same RS describing the Oct 7 attack by Hamas as a terrorist attack to simultaneously and explicitly spell out that this attack is borne from Islamist fundamentalist motivations, to conclude that the terrorist attack by an Islamist terrorist group is an Islamist terrorist attack. I think that's just contrary to common sense, and [WP:Bluesky]]. For an attack of such scale on a Jewish population, what other motivations can they have? Christianity? HollerithPunchCard (talk) 00:39, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
    WP:BLUESKY applies where there is no disagreement about the sky being blue. There is no consensus in reliable sources about the October 7 attacks being "terrorism". Nor is there consensus amongst world governments about Hamas being a "terrorist" organisation. TarnishedPathtalk 11:30, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
    If a RS says that Hamas is an Islamist terrorist organization, and If there is RS also saying that the Oct 7 attack is a Hamas terrorist attack, then I think it's common sense to conclude that the Oct 7 attack is an Islamist terrorist attack. I think most sources will say that the US is a Christian country and that it has a capitalist economic system - and pretty much always has been both, and the Vietnam War was a war. So obviously the Vietnam war (or any other one the US has ever fought) was a Christian/capitalist war? Not everything a person, organisation or country does is motivated by something that may be one (disputed?) aspect of its philosophy. Is everything Israel does automatically Zionist in character because the state is?
    For an attack of such scale on a Jewish population, what other motivations can they have? Christianity? … Errr territory? Perceived grievance? Why do people usually kill other people when they aren't doing it with overtly 'religious' justification? Pincrete (talk) 12:59, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Changing my vote to oppose, especially after considering the arguments of Levivich. The first two criteria are hopelessly muddled and would either render the list totally empty or fill it just arbitrarily with whatever those who edit most boldly can get away with it. First there is that "consensus of reliable sources describe the incident as 'terrorism'" – what does that mean? Outside of Wikipedia, "consensus" generally means "a process of decision-making that seeks widespread agreement among group members" as well as "general agreement among the members of a given group or community" (Wiktionary definitions). So it's a process as well as an outcome. But there is, of course, no consensus-building process among reliable sources – each of them writes as they deem best, without seeking agreement. How likely is it that general agreement will nevertheless emerge? Very unlikely of course, and hence we don't use this term elsewhere when referring to RS. We don't require "consensus among RS" before a fact or theory can be mentioned in Wikipedia, otherwise the encyclopedia would be quite empty. Instead we require DUE weight to be given to the differing theories that may be found in the RS, with the mainstream view (if there is any) being presented first and most prominently, while less widely held viewpoints are given less weight. We don't require "consensus" among scientists or historians, since except for the most well-settled topics, there won't be any. And that's true even of fairly uncontroversial stuff. So how for heaven's sake could we imagine there will ever be "consensus" for the contentious term "terrorism"? There is no need to go now into details about what the best alternative requirement would be – it will be necessary to restart the discussion at some later point in order to find it. But one possible alternative would be to follow MOS:TERRORIST and simply require that these words are "widely used by reliable sources" for any event listed here, without saying anything about a consensus or even a majority (as both are impossible to determine anyway).
Then there's the requirement that "the same reliable sources make it clear that there were Islamist motivations". "Same" is already somewhat strange here, as I had pointed out in my original vote – especially if a consensus (impossible to achieve) is postulated anyway, how could they even be different? Then there's the unclear formulation that "there were Islamist motivations", which has already led to a lot of discussions. Evidently if a source writes "the Islamist-motivated terrorist attack" that would qualify, but such a wording will be very rare. What about sources writing stuff like "terrorist attack committed by the Islamist Hamas"? I suspect that the author of such an article would generally reply "yes" to the question, "so do you think the attack was motivated by Islamism?" but there have already been lots of discussions about whether or not such a conclusion would be SYNTH if we draw it (and of course, RS authors will hardly be available for interviews). But together, by apparently requiring very specific wordings and by requiring "consensus" of more or less all RS, it will be very easy to throw out any actual or conceivable act as unfit for this list, leaving it to editors' arbitrary decisions which entries will actually be allowed to stand. Here too a new discussion for better criteria will be needed. One more reasonable option would be to require something like "the attack or the main attacker(s) are widely described as Islamist (motivated by Islamism) in RS", making it clear that the motives of the attacker will very likely be the motives behind the attack and there is no reason to arbitrarily divide the two, as if such a thing were possible. Gawaon (talk) 21:45, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
@Gawaon, The wording is a consensus of, not a consensus amongst. The list criteria already includes that a consensus of reliable sources describe the incident as terrorism. This is to give voice to MOS:TERRORIST and to make sure that we hopefully don't end up with entries where there is substantial disagreement on whether an event was terrorism or not. My proposal is to add an extra criterion that a consensus of reliable sources also make it clear that there were Islamist motivations. To me that is less onerous than the reliable sources describing Islamist motivations. Please refer to the RfC close above which was closed with no consensus, in part because the closer couldn't determine what a Islamist terrorist attack is because we don't know. As per your questions. If a source said "terrorist attack committed X" and then elsewhere in the same article made reference to there being Islamist motivations, I don't think anyone in there right mind would see any problem with that meeting the proposed list criteria. My proposal does not demand that there be a specific sentence in each article that is along the lines of "terrorist attack committed by X had Islamist motivations". Can we please also not limit this discussion to organisations like Hamas and Al Quada, as they make up a very small amount of this list. TarnishedPathtalk 01:00, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
I have no idea what the difference between "consensus of" vs. "consensus amongst" could be. I know that the unexplained "consensus" criterion is already in the current list criteria, but I think sooner or later it needs to be replaced with some more well-defined and objectively applicable criterion, if this list (and likewise the List of Islamist terrorist attacks) wants to become a source of useful information rather than a mere hotspot of contentious edit fighting. Moreover, that this criterion is unusable has been one of the findings of the closer of the RfCs on the inclusion of the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel, who determined, on Talk:List of major terrorist incidents#RfC: including "Operation Al-Aqsa Flood" in the list of major terrorist incidents?, that there was a "lack of agreement" regarding the question "What is a 'consensus of reliable sources'?", and who therefore decided the question by "my least favourite part of closing: tallying votes". In other words: since there is no agreement whatsoever on what might be meant by this wording and whether it's fulfilled for any given event, we decide by following the majority preferences of editors instead. A more clearly demonstrated failure of the usability of that criterion is hard to image. So, let's reject this RfC and then work on finding something better. I know that won't be easy, but I think it's possible. Gawaon (talk) 18:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
What a consensus is, is determined all the time in RfCs. It's also determined when it doesn't exist. In the case of that RfC if the closer determined that no consensus existed, they shouldn't have merely counted votes. They ought to have closed the RfC as "No consensus" per considerable disagreement between reliable sources about whether that attack is a war/operation/attack or terrorism. TarnishedPathtalk 23:30, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
What does “consensus of” reliable sources mean? Do you mean something like “preponderance of” or “majority of” reliable sources? (That might be easier to determine than consensus.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 05:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
No significant disagreement between sources on whether something is terrorism, or whether something has Islamist motivations. I'm not sure if that's quite as strong as a preponderance, which seems like a stronger a requirement. TarnishedPathtalk 06:12, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
This agrees with what I said in my vote: "No significant disagreement" is simply an impossible-to-fulfil criterion, so whatever entries nevertheless appear in the list are due to editorial arbitrariness (in some cases the editors might choose to look away and not check the sources thoroughly, not so in others) rather then some kind of objective and realistic criterion. Disagreement is a normal part of the real word, and if we postulated "no significant disagreement" for coverage of scientific theories, historical events, or whatever else, Wikipedia would be quite empty. But we don't, it seems we only require it for this contentious topic – which is absurd, since it's clear that with contentious topics lack of disagreement is even less likely than anywhere else. So, sad to say, but this list will continue to be arbitrary and hence useless unless we manage to agree on a better set of criteria. Gawaon (talk) 18:21, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Support, makes sense. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 21:22, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Support, reasonable suggestions Timceharris (talk) 01:27, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose, Impossible criteria. The policy of many reliable sources, such as the BBC, is never to use the word 'terrorism' in their own voice; therefore, we will never have 'consensus' to include anything. The inclusion criteria for this page should include an attack that was decried as an act of "terrorism" by official statements of at least 10 nations, and the attack was performed by an Islamist group (The number is debatable).
    • Important - This inclusion doesn't imply that we, as Wikipedia, are stating it IS terrorism, as this is a highly subjective term. Rather, it makes the topic notable for an article ABOUT terrorism, while referencing the viewpoints for and against this designation. Marokwitz (talk) 13:31, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
    Disagree with proposed criterion. We need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was an Islamic terrorist attack, i.e., a terror attack motivated predominantly by Islamist ideology. We must be sure that it was not a terror attack carried out by an Islamist organisation but motivated predominantly by other considerations, such as Palestinian independence struggle, economic hardships, Saudi-Israeli rapprochement, and so on. — kashmīrī TALK 21:33, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose - first, don't make the same mistake we made last time of using "consensus of reliable sources," an undefined term. How many is a "consensus"? A majority? Two-thirds? How do you determine if anything has a consensus of reliable sources? Scientific consensus is a thing, but I think it was a mistake to try and apply that concept to newsmedia. Second, I'd like to see three examples of terrorist attacks where, for each terrorist attack, there are multiple RSes saying they had "Islamist motivations." I don't think that exists (and even if there were multiple RSes, there's still the problem of whether that is "consensus" or not).

    Test criteria before it's proposed: for any proposed criteria, run a host of examples through that criteria, and ensure that the examples come out the "right" way. This is something I didn't do last time that I should have done. The criteria should be tested before it's proposed, and I think this criteria will fail the test (i.e., no terrorist attack will meet this criteria, even those that should). Levivich (talk) 20:56, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

    If that should turn out to be the case, then that strengthens the case for merge/deletion that I mentioned previously. Selfstudier (talk) 22:46, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
    One possible criteria is "(1) has an article and (2) is used as an example of Islamist terrorism in an academic work about Islamist terrorism." So this book gives Air France Flight 8969, 7 July 2005 London bombings, and Charlie Hebdo shooting as examples. As a bonus it fights against WP:RECENTISM, which is also the reason it probably wouldn't gain consensus. Levivich (talk) 00:41, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
    I think the criteria I've presented also fights against WP:RECENTISM insofar as it potentially makes people step back and wait for potential academic sources or retrospective works. The possible criteria you've presented isn't that different to the one I've presented except for the addition that sources be academic. As per the meaning of consensus, I think anyone with common sense can determine that if an entry is up for dispute then we determines where the weight of sources lies. People closing RfC determine consensus all the time without too much trouble. TarnishedPathtalk 01:42, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The second bullet is really the problem. If reliable sources establish that an incident is a terrorist attack and that the attack is attributable to group X, that should suffice provided group X is established by other reliable sources as an Islamist org. When group X is al Qaeda or the Taliban, for example, coverage of a given terrorist attack may not explicitly use the term "Islamist" or "Islamism", because the fact that these orgs are "Islamist" is so obvious and well-known that the source may not deem it necessary to explicitly reiterate that fact. That al Qaeda is Islamist is WP:BLUESKY. The proposal here is employing a pedantic misreading and over-application of WP:SYNTH in an attempt to create such a high bar for inclusion that almost nothing will make this list, despite the fact that, as stated in the lead, we've had nearly 50,000 of these sorts of Islamist terrorists attacks killing over 200,000 people in the last four decades or so. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:14, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
    In my experience (on Islamic terrorism in Europe), the problem isn't clear cut cases of aQ or IS perpetrating an act - which hardly happens anyway in Europe recently. The problem is where there is a tenuous or disputed relationship between a lone wolf operative and IS or similar - black flags reportedly found on perpetrator's laptops , anon witnesses reporting that they heard ʾAllāhu ʾakbaru, etc. Pincrete (talk) 13:01, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
    I've always found such cases problematic. There's literally entries like that in this list now. E.g. 2015 Parramatta shooting which occurred 2 October 2015. Stuff like that really doesn't belong here if reliable sources can't make it crystal clear that there were Islamist motivations rather than just suspicions of motivations. I hope that stuff like this is can be clearly sorted out by what I've proposed with the list criteria. TarnishedPathtalk 04:09, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Support. The objections to point 2 make no sense. Lists about controversial topics almost always need a consensus among reliable sources. This is certainly not a "list of incidents that are relevant to discussion terrorism", it is a list of terrorist attacks; putting something here is identical to describing it as terrorism in the article voice and has the same standard for sourcing. If, as some people above imply, it is never possible to describe something as terrorism because enough WP:RSes avoid using that word that a consensus will never exist, then this list ought to be deleted. I don't think that that's actually the case, but the answer to "well the RSes hedge their wording on this too much" isn't "ok we can ignore them"; it means that we have to hedge our wording as well. Of course, keep in mind that a consensus among reliable sources does not require "absolutely every source that exists calls it an Islamist terror attack" It doesn't even always mean "the majority of sources discussing it call it an Islamist terror attack"; only the ones that actually contemplate its nature and motivation count, with ones that go in-depth on that aspect counting the most. If there's a clear consensus among high-quality sources that something is Islamist terrorism, and the remaining sources don't describe it in a way that disputes or contradicts that conclusion, that's a consensus. But you have to be able to make some argument, with a straight face, that that consensus exists; if there's clearly disagreement, or if the view that it's an Islamist terror attack is plainly not mainstream, then it should never be considered for entry here. This is not new or strange, it's standard for how we cover sensitive or controversial topics in the article voice. And of course they need to be the same sources - having a list of entries that combines these two particular characteristics unambiguously carries significant meaning not present in either of the two characteristics on their own; only sources that clearly characterize an attack as an [Islamist terrorist] attack in some fashion are usable for inclusion here. Sources that only focus on one or the other have no value for inclusion whatsoever. --Aquillion (talk) 05:33, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Marokwitz, Jweiss11. Needlessly restrictive criteria that goes against commonsense, WP:BLUESKY. A source doesn't need to explicitly say "Islamist" if a group is already defined and understood to be Islamist (Al Qaeda, ISIS, Hezbollah, Hamas, Taliban, etc). \\ Loksmythe // (talk) 06:23, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
    @Loksmythe, most entries on this list aren't by those organisations you list. TarnishedPathtalk 07:07, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
    TarnishedPath, if a terrorist act is committed by an affiliated lone wolf, then yes, we're going to need an RS to establish an Islamist motivation for that particular act. But not when the act is attributed to Al Qaeda, ISIS, Hezbollah, Hamas, Taliban, etc as the Islamism in those cases is BLUESKY. That's Loksmythe point and the point I raised above. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:06, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
    Jweiss, perhaps you should refer to the RfC close above. TarnishedPathtalk 01:41, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Support: Yes, this list, as any other, should feature entries whose characterization is clearly supported by individual reliable sources without the need for WP:SYNTH. That incidents are notable, preferably with standalone articles, is a given on all lists. These criteria should be readily achievable for applicable entries. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:39, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Very strong opposition to option 2 per all above Parham wiki (talk) 10:41, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
    Are their options here? Or did you maybe mean "criterion 2"? Gawaon (talk) 10:59, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
    @Gawaon, I think they mean criterion 2 as you suggest. TarnishedPathtalk 12:38, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
    In other words, Support with the exception of Criterion 2? Selfstudier (talk) 18:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
    That would effectively mean oppose, since the other criteria are already the status quo. Gawaon (talk) 18:30, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Support, it seems self-evident that sources should be clear both about 'terrorism' and 'motive' of each specific event. I cannot imagine a circumstance in which the same source would not say both things, except in circumstances where one or other is disputed - but if they don't, neither should we. As the discussion above argued, not everything done by an org with some Islamist beliefs is necessarily done for Islamist motives. I also point out that some sources quoted on both sides of this argument cite 'terror attack' rather than 'terrorist attack'. In my experience terror attack' is a largely meaningless way of news sources describing a 'scary event' often before they know who or why or what caused the scare - whereas 'terrorist attacks' have explicit (even if nihilistic) political objectives. Also point out that (regionally and historically) synonyms of 'Islamism' are widespread - Islamic terrorism , Islamic extremism etc + 'Jihadist terrorism' is now officially used by the EU terrorism coordinating body, so these criteria need to be flexible about precise phrasing, even if strict in applying the criteria . Pincrete (talk) 08:19, 30 November 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.

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

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
I recently closed a closely related RfC which concluded that there exists a consensus among reliable sources that the attack can be called terroristic. I shall therefore not be focusing on that aspect in this summary. The unique element of this RfC, namely Islamism, got less attention from participants than the terrorism question. Proponents of considering the attack in question an Islamistic one generally syllogized that since Hamas is Islamistic, and the attack was conducted by Hamas, it must be Islamistic. The opposing side argued that this does not hold true, citing our policy on original research by synthesis and relevant literature. At this point I'd like to declare that one side is now officially right and the other wrong, but these arguments are of little use as long as it is not clearly defined what an Islamist terrorist attack is for the purposes of this list. Call this close a no consensus if you want, but the more important take-away is that the current confused state of this list precludes any consensus arising. To reach any consensus we need at least some basic agreement on what it is we're arguing about, and such an agreement must be reached either before, or as an integral part of, any future discussion like this one. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 15:05, 19 November 2023 (UTC)


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

Strong NO, this is a war and not whatever ISIS was doing Abo Yemen✉ 17:31, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
Hamas attacked Israel, employed terror techniques in order to spread fear and maximize panic in civilian populations (filming their killings, putting on social media, targeting civilians, raping civilians in front of other civilians etc). Following this action, Israel declared war on Hamas. Similarly, ISIS performed terror attacks against civilians. France, the US, Arab League countries and others following terror attacks, attacked ISIS. I don't see your anology. Homerethegreat (talk) 08:52, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
Yes Hamas's attack targeted civilians communities. It was filmed in live in order to terrorize civilians. Hamas carried pamphlets and instruction manuals. Hamas men captured recounted their atrocities which included rape, sexual assault and more. I can list a list of atrocities committed by Hamas. Hamas opened this attack, which was a surprise attack on Israel by almost all accounts. I will add a quote from the economist regarding intent of Hamas which also surmount some points.[2]
Quote: By the un definition, Hamas is a genocidal organization. Its founding charter, published in 1988, explicitly commits it to obliterating Israel. Article 7 states that “The Day of Judgment will not come about until Moslems fight Jews and kill them”. Article 13 rejects any compromise, or peace, until Israel is destroyed. Hamas fighters who burst into Israel on October 7th and killed more than 1,400 Israelis (and other nationalities) were carrying out the letter of their genocidal law.
This quote above speaks of motive of their attack, similar attacks against civilian populations with the intent to hurt and thus terrorize a nation have been also labeled a terrorist attack. Homerethegreat (talk) 08:50, 13 November 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. TarnishedPathtalk 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. TarnishedPathtalk 23:21, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
    • The Guardian,[3][4] The Conversation[5][6] and NBC News[7][8][9] 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].[10]
    • 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.[11] 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. TarnishedPathtalk 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. TarnishedPathtalk 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,[12][13][14] 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.[15][16][17][18][19][20]
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.[1] 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)

  • 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. TarnishedPathtalk 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".[21] 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. TarnishedPathtalk 23:44, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
      In the one you've quoted. TarnishedPathtalk 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. TarnishedPathtalk 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. TarnishedPathtalk 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)
    From the Iraq war where US military did the same[22] and termed it collateral damage? — kashmīrī TALK 08:33, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
    Since Wikipedia policy is to assume good faith I must assume you have this position because you never read the hamas charter which is about as Islamic as you get.
    https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp
    Just an example to show Hamas is clearly Islamic
    "Article Eight:
    Allah is its target, the Prophet is its model, the Koran its constitution: Jihad is its path and death for the sake of Allah is the loftiest of its wishes."
    Now that you read the charter and still assuming good faith I'm sure you will correct your obvious, and explicit mistake. Then we can deal with the bigger and dangerous mistake that "The civilian victims were collateral damage" despite the video evidence to the contrary from Hamas terrorist themselves, which I'm sure is just as unintentional. Yestyest2000 (talk) 07:22, 17 November 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[23][24][25][26][27][28] 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:[29][30] "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".[31][32] 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";[33] Mohammed Deif, the military leader of Hamas, made a similar connection.[34] 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;[35] that instructs its "fighters", sent to rural farming communities, to "kill as many people as possible";[36][37] that has special code words for events like "killing all hostages", "using human shields", and "setting houses on fire";[38] that massacres at close range hundreds of unarmed party goers,[39][40] entire families,[41] and even pets;[42] that takes hostage mothers with their babies,[43] hiding youth[44] and disabled elderly;[45] and that - to add insult to murder - then posts a record of all this to social media.[46][47][48][49] 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.[50][51][52][53]
    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,[54] as well as transnational organization like the EU,[55][56] UN[57][58][59][60] and NATO.[61] 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. TarnishedPathtalk 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. TarnishedPathtalk 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? TarnishedPathtalk 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. TarnishedPathtalk 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"[62]); and the two's sponsor, Iran,[63] whose "Islamic Revolutionary Guard" is reported to have assisted in the planning of the attack.[64] 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). TarnishedPathtalk 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. TarnishedPathtalk 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;[65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76][77] 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?[78][79][80][81][82]
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"[83]
  • "Islamist terror attack"[84]
  • "massive assault on Israel by the Palestinian Islamist terror group Hamas"[85]
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)
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). TarnishedPathtalk 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. TarnishedPathtalk 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. TarnishedPathtalk 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? TarnishedPathtalk 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. TarnishedPathtalk 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. TarnishedPathtalk 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. TarnishedPathtalk 07:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
If you do not deny the fact that Hamas is an Islamist terrorist organization, which numerous RS canvassed in this talk has shown, then the Oct 7 attack that this Islamist terrorist organization inflicted against a Jewish population is an Islamist terrorist attack. This is common sense.
It is also plain English, a case of an adjective (Islamist terrorist) being applied to a noun (organization) that commits an act (the attack). Take the case of a different political unit, say Israel. Israel commits an attack against Hamas. That attack is called an Israeli attack. It's really not that hard.
For you to go all the way to Northern Ireland, to talk about the IRA, US capitalism, Israel Zionism, to deny calling an attack by an Islamist terrorist organization as an Islamist terrorist attack, seems, with respect, to be a lot of irrelevancy, WP:OR and ultimately, back-bending. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 13:02, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Incorrect, it is not common sense. There is no consensus in WP:RS about whether Operation Al-Aqsa Flood is a terrorist incident or not. Many WP:RS refer to Operation Al-Aqsa Flood as a war, an operation, an attack and do not use the word terrorism or terrorist at all. Most of those calling it a terrorist incident are the Israeli state and politicians and diplomats with ties to Israel and articles where the words terrorist are used are often quoting these groups or people. Arab League countries, Latin American countries, African countries, China, Russia, Brazil, etc. have refused to label the operation as a "terrorist" attack. TarnishedPathtalk 07:09, 6 November 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.”" [87] 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. TarnishedPathtalk 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. TarnishedPathtalk 10:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
The difference is that you can draw a direct line (and that line has indeed been drawn in RS's) from Hamas's Islamic ideology to the practice of slaughtering civilians by hand at point-blank range, whereas Israel's response is in line with what any liberal democracy would do if 1,000 of its civilians had been slaughtered by hand at point-blank range by Islamists. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:46, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
You're aware of WP:NOTFORUM, right? nableezy - 04:48, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Original research, wow. Abo Yemen✉ 05:00, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
And WP:SYNTH and WP:OR still aren't legitimate grounds for inserting edits into articles. TarnishedPathtalk 05:09, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Forum? Lolwut? I'm responding to TarnishedPath's analogy here in the context how to best manage the content of this article. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:20, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Please don't laugh at editors. Please remember to be WP:CIVIL. TarnishedPathtalk 05:38, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Ps, it might reduce confusion if you respond directly under the person you are addressing. TarnishedPathtalk 05:40, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
TarnishedPath, I don't think laughing at absurdities is considered uncivil. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:46, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
whereas Israel's response is in line with what any liberal democracy would do if 1,000 of its civilians had been slaughtered following that logic: since Israel slaughtered thousands of Palestinian civilians (before October 2023), what Hamas did is in line with what anyone would do to defend themselves against an apartheid regime that has has no respect for international law. M.Bitton (talk) 12:59, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
M.Bitton, I have a response for you, but I'm waiting to see if any other other participants here admonish you about WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, or WP:FORUM. Should I hold my breath? Jweiss11 (talk) 04:05, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
How about both of your keep your arguments to policy and reliable sources. TarnishedPathtalk 04:36, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
TarnishedPath, I haven't made a single argument that wasn't informed by policy and reliable sources. What would be helpful is if you refrained from any more spurious admonishments here on the talk page and obstructionist deletion and tag-bombing on the article. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:56, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
@Jweiss11, when you rely on sources which don't in their own right clearly articulate that an attack was an Islamic/Ismalist terrorist attack in an article which is about Islamist terrorist attacks then those sources need replacing with ones that do. If you think I'm incorrect in my interpretation then I invite you to bring this up at WP:NORN and we'll see who is correctly interpreting Wikipedia's policy on original research. TarnishedPathtalk 07:00, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
TarnishedPath, it's not original research to assert that Al-Qaeda is an Islamist organization. Jweiss11 (talk) 14:23, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
If the citation you are using does not explicitly state that the individual/s or organisation carrying out the attack is "Islamist" this yes it is original research. Take it to WP:NORN if you disagree. TarnishedPathtalk 14:29, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
If you want to start a broader RfC on the policy at WP:OR by all means go for it. TarnishedPathtalk 14:31, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
@TarnishedPath< @Jweiss11: you're wrong. My comment, which is based on one of our core policies, is meant to prove that since the support !votes are based on WP:SYNTH, they should therefore be disregarded. Your attempt at proving otherwise (using WP:OR) ledt to another response that proves that your rationale is baseless. All your last comment tells me is that you now found yourself cornered by your own flawed logic (which explains why you're citing guidelines that apply exclusively to you). M.Bitton (talk) 13:35, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
@M.Bitton, you're misinterpreting me. I have the exact same WP:SYNTH and WP:OR analysis as you do. I was merely stating to keep arguments on the argument at hand, rather than outside issues. I'm sure you can appreciate. TarnishedPathtalk 14:08, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
@TarnishedPath: I have no idea how I ended up using your username instead of Jweiss11. I have now corrected the mistake. M.Bitton (talk) 14:14, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
All good mate, it happens. Take care. TarnishedPathtalk 14:22, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
M.Bitton, I'm not corned by my own flawed logic. I'm up pitted here against several editor editors with who aren't applying principles consistently. When I said above The difference is that you can draw a direct line (and that line has indeed been drawn in RS's) from Hamas's Islamic ideology to the practice of slaughtering civilians by hand at point-blank range, whereas Israel's response is in line with what any liberal democracy would do if 1,000 of its civilians had been slaughtered by hand at point-blank range by Islamists, I was immediately admonished with spurious warnings about WP:NOTFORUM and WP:OR by nableezy, Abo Yemen, and Tarnished Path. But when you made comments such as 1) Sources for what? That the Palestinians get urinated upon on daily basis?, 2) By that logic, since Israel's current government is the most racist and religiously conservative government in Israel's history, then its actions towards the Palestinians are racially and religiously motivated, or to put it another way, its bombardement of Gaza is done in the name of racism and religious bigotry. and 3) following that logic: since Israel slaughtered thousands of Palestinian civilians (before October 2023), what Hamas did is in line with what anyone would do to defend themselves against an apartheid regime that has has no respect for international law., no one made any similar admonishments. Jweiss11 (talk) 14:58, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
@Jweiss11: FWIW, when I see comments like these I can't help but think there's no point in mentioning WP:NOTFORUM, WP:SOAPBOX or WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, because the other side isn't here to discuss anyway. François Robere (talk) 15:41, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Please don't pollute this section with your aspersions. M.Bitton (talk) 18:50, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Rubbish, please don't suggest motives or perspectives on behalf of other editors. Refer to my statement above where I suggested you both keep your arguments on policy and reliable sources. TarnishedPathtalk 08:27, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Jim 2 Michael's argument isn't WP:SYNTH. If a set of RS's says Group A is Islamist and myriad of other sources says Group A committed terrorist attack Y, then terrorist attack Y qualifies for inclusion here under WP:BLUESKY. Similarly, if you have a source that says Derek Jeter played for the New York Yankees, that's sufficient to include Jeter on a list of Major League Baseball players. Jweiss11 (talk) 14:46, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
That is actually textbook synth. A+B=C is the literal definition of WP:SYNTH. nableezy - 22:08, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
@Nableezy: so in your view, the Jeter/Yankees/MLB scenario would be a WP:SYNTH? Jweiss11 (talk) 22:33, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
SYNTH is when two or more reliably-sourced statements are combined to produce a new thesis that isn't verifiable from the sources. Selfstudier (talk) 22:58, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
No, those two are not analogous. That a group is Islamist does not make all its actions definitionally Islamist, otherwise youd be saying that traffic tickets in Gaza are Islamist taxes. nableezy - 23:02, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Nableezy, so, the Jeter/Yankees/MLB scenario would not be a WP:SYNTH, correct? Jweiss11 (talk) 02:49, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
If you are relying on one source A to say that a group is an Islamist group and another source B to say that the same group committed a particular terrorist attack and arriving at the conclusion C that they committed a particular Islamist terrorist attack and using that as justification for inclusion in this list which has the name "List of Islamist terrorist attacks", that is dictionary WP:SYNTH. I've invited you several times to take this up at WP:NORN if you disagree but you haven't done so. TarnishedPathtalk 08:36, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
TarnishedPath, I may take this up at some point at WP:NORN, but it seems better to continue discussing here for now rather than fork the discussion. What do you think about the Jeter/Yankees/MLB scenario? Jweiss11 (talk) 21:51, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
I'm Australian and only follow sport on and off, you should never presume your audience. Using your specific example, most of the 7 billion of us that don't make up the United States of America and Japan probably have little knowledge or interest the game of Baseball. You can not presume that everyone knows that the New York Yankees is a Major League Baseball team. Even if there was a high degree of knowledge throughout the 7 billion people which don't live in the US and Japan about that fact you can't just willy nilly apply WP:BLUESKY to everything and anything. It is not presumed knowledge for example that Hamas is a terrorist organisation.
There is no consensus in WP:RS about whether Operation Al-Aqsa Flood is a terrorist incident or not. Many WP:RS refer to Operation Al-Aqsa Flood as a war, an operation, an attack and do not use the word terrorism or terrorist at all. Most of those calling it a terrorist incident are the Israeli state and politicians and diplomats with ties to Israel and articles where the words terrorist are used are often quoting these groups or people. Arab League countries, Latin American countries, African countries, China, Russia, Brazil, etc. have refused to label the operation as a "terrorist" attack. There is no consensus in WP:RS. Trying to claim that WP:BLUESKY is applicabe in a situation like this is incorrect and any attempt to combine source in a way that resembles A + B = C is WP:SYNTH. TarnishedPathtalk 02:07, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
TarnishedPath, I'm happy to do another example with Australian sports or Australian anything, if you want. Anyone who reads English should be capable of clicking through on New York Yankees and quickly learn that the team has been a Major League Baseball member for its entire 120-year history. I had never heard of North Melbourne Football Club before five minutes ago, but I will concede that a source merely confirming that Brent Harvey played for North Melbourne would suffice to include Harvey on List of Australian Football League players. You know why? Because I can think abstractly about analogs and apply rules about them universally. It indeed should be presumed that Hamas, and moreover Al-Qaeda, are Islamist because that's their fundamental attribute. So when we have RS's that say "terrorist attack" done by Hamas or Al-Qaeda, that should suffice for including that event in this list. You spurious harping on WP:SYNTH amounts to obstructive pedantry. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:22, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Al-Qaeda is a red hearing. This RfC is about Hamas. Your attempts to use sports examples claiming that people can merely click through is also presuming that Wikipedia is a reliable source and it's not. Going back to Hamas, there is no agreement about them being designated as a terrorist organisation, which a lot of the arguments in this RfC have tried to use. Also there is no consensus in reliable sources about this being a terrorist attack. Many sources call it a war. Again trying to claim that WP:BLUESKY is applicable in a situation like this is incorrect and any attempt to combine source in a way that resembles A + B = C is WP:SYNTH. Alternatively just presuming that because some countries designate Hamas a terrorist organisation and therefore this must be a terrorist attack is WP:OR. TarnishedPathtalk 03:57, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
The 2023 Hamas attack on Israel was clearly an attack & invasion. It was not a war; it was the beginning of the 2023 Israel–Hamas war. No VNSA group is designated terrorist in all countries, but Hamas is in many. If universal designation were required, no attack could be on lists such as this one. The large majority of the victims were civilians, including a massacre at a music festival & several at kibbutzim. It therefore wasn't a legitimate military operation. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 17:21, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
And a whole load of military bases - let's not forget the many, many military bases that were specifically targeted and attacked. You're welcome to your opinion on the designation, but let's not omit details. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:56, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Actually just eight. Eight military bases and outposts, two outdoor parties, and 24 towns and rural settlements.[88] François Robere (talk) 18:33, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Considering the number of Palestinian civilians that have been killed by Israelis throughout the years, I think that anyone who dares to link civilian deaths to terrorism without accusing Israel first is simply having a laugh. M.Bitton (talk) 18:50, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
WP:NOTFORUM applies to everybody here, please leave the personal opinions on some other website. nableezy - 19:49, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
I suggest you do the same, because the whole RfC is one personal opinion after another and yours are no exception. If editors presented RS that support their !Vote instead of engaging in all kind of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, we wouldn't be having this discussion. M.Bitton (talk) 20:48, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
I havent offered my personal opinion anywhere on this page. Ive said the same thing to people who have been doing so on both sides of this topic across a range of pages. This will go much easier if people a. stop personalizing things, and b. discuss the sources and not their own personal views. I think that anyone who dares to link civilian deaths to terrorism without accusing Israel first is simply having a laugh. is a personal view. And it does not belong on this talk page. Im not trying to discourage your or anybody else from participating, but we have WP:NOTFORUM as a rule not to suppress discussion but to keep discussion productive. nableezy - 21:51, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Yes you have (no need to look further than the comment just after this one) and don't try to make yourself look good and neutral at my expense, it won't work. M.Bitton (talk) 22:06, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
No, the comment after this one is focused on the definition of terrorism, that being attacks on civilians, and how it does not apply to military targets. That isnt a personal opinion, but here is an example source showing the distinction: Using drones, Hamas destroyed key surveillance and communications towers along the border with Gaza, imposing vast blind spots on the Israeli military. With explosives and tractors, Hamas blew open gaps in the border barricades, allowing 200 attackers to pour through in the first wave and another 1,800 later that day, officials say. On motorcycles and in pickup trucks, the assailants surged into Israel, overwhelming at least eight military bases and waging terrorist attacks against civilians in more than 15 villages and cities. It separates the attacks on the military bases and the attacks on civilians in the villages and cities, calling the latter terrorist and not the former. But that isnt personal opinion, and it is focused on the article, not an argument about if somebody is "having a laugh". nableezy - 22:22, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Any comment that doesn't address the specific topic (using RS about the specific topic) is an opinion. Some tend to think that that their opinion is special, but that's the way this endless discussions go. I'm done here. This is my last comment (feel free to have the last word). M.Bitton (talk) 22:33, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Do you think it reasonable to include attacks on eight military bases against a country imposing a blockade against another territory as a "terrorist attack"? This is my problem with the proposal, the target article covers what are attacks on military targets. Yes, it covers terror attacks on civilian targets as well. But since we have articles on those attacks, why not just include those instead? Initially I said the music festival one, but add Be'eri massacre to my !vote to include as well. I cant honestly say Ive kept track of each death count across the 24+2 civilian targets, but anything of a similar scale add it as well. But I do have an issue including in a list of terrorist attacks attacks on straight up military targets. nableezy - 19:52, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
I agree with the basic distinction and don't necessarily object to separate listings, but:
  1. From a purely procedural standpoint it would be mess, since there are so many of them.
  2. It's very difficult, if at all possible, to make a distinction between eg. those who were killed at Re'im base, at Re'im kibbutz, at the Re'im music festival just outside the kibbutz, on the roads between them, or in the fields and orchards that surround them. The whole thing was one big bloodbath.
  3. And it was planned as such. When Hamas was preparing "Operation Al-Aqsa Flood", it did not make the distinction between civilian and military that you're asking us to make. It did not mull over the cost it will have in civilian lives, nor consider how intelligent, sophisticated Wikipedians would deliberate over its nuances. Hamas and Islamic Jihad planned a bloodbath. They intented to inflict as many casualties, unleash as much violence, and take as many hostages as possible from among both civilians and soldiers. And that matters. François Robere (talk) 13:24, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
    Making a distinction between civilian/military losses and attempting to avoid civilian losses is not a defining characteristic of terrorism. If it was we would classify the dropping of nuclear bombs on Hiroshima/Nagasaki, the fireboming of Tokyo/Dresden, use of agent orange in Vietnam, Assad's use of barrel bombs, etc to be terrorist acts and we don't. War crimes in some cases, but not terrorist acts. TarnishedPathtalk 23:20, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
That's baseless WP:SYNTH. M.Bitton (talk) 18:50, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
@Jim 2 Michael, a large majority of the victims being civilians in and of itself isn't a defining characteristic of terrorism. If it were the US and Israel would be defined as terrorist states and that simply isn't the case. TarnishedPathtalk 03:16, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
I think the majority of editors here do not dispute that the Oct 7 attack is a terrorist attack, as indicated by RS. Neither is there serious disagreement amongst the majority of editors here that Hamas is an Islamist terrorist organization, again as indicted by RS.
The main point of disagreement is that the editors in the opposing camp believe that it is WP:SYNTH to call the attack by an Islamist terrorist organization an Islamist terrorist attack, citing that the RS does not explicitly say that the Oct 7 attack was borne from Islamist motivations.
As I have mentioned earlier, to draw a distinction between an attack by an Islamist terrorist organization and an Islamist terrorist attack, in the context of the notorious Oct 7 attack against a Jewish population, is splitting hairs and lacks common sense.
It is also plain English, a case of an adjective (Islamist terrorist) being applied to a noun (organization) that commits an act (the attack). Take the case of a different political unit, say Israel. Israel commits an attack against Hamas. The attack would be called an Israeli attack. No one can seriously deny calling such attack an Israeli attack on the basis of a supposed lack of motivations in Zionism, or Israeli patriotism on the part of the attackers.
Since we are comparing Hamas to Israel and US. The above analogy should be apt. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 13:14, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Please don't misrepresent the arguments of others. There is no consensus amongst various governments and publications on whether Hamas is a terrorist organisation. The United Nations has not even designated them a terrorist organisation. Trying to cobble together sources in a manner that one source saying they committed the attack and it was a terrorism and another source saying they are Islamist to arrive at the conclusion that the attack by Hamas was a Islamist terrorist attack is WP:SYNTH. Alternatively if you're just relying on some supposed universal knowledge that Hamas is a terrorist organisation to arrive at the conclusion that what occurred was an Islamist terrorist attack, that is WP:OR. You can refer what I wrote above about a lack of consensus on that matter.
Common sense says we accept things which are universal, not that we accept all arguments because people assert that they are common sense. You're making an appeal to WP:OR. The only hair splitting that would be occurring would be if there was universal consensus that Hamas was a terrorist organisation and that is a long, long way from reality. TarnishedPathtalk 07:05, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Do you disagree though that the Oct 7, 2023 is a terrorist attack? Or at least the RS says that the October 7, 2023 is a terrorist attack? HollerithPunchCard (talk) 16:54, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
There is not a consensus of reliable sources that describe it as "terrorism". Refer to the list criteria at the top of this page. TarnishedPathtalk 11:06, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes - certainly motivated by Islamism and certainly valid as terror since Hamas is widely regarded as a nationalist AND Islamist movement.[89] Its name is literally Ḥarakat al-Muqāwamah al-Islāmiyyah - Islamic Resistance Movement (emphasiing Islamic over Arab nationalist or Palestinian).GreyShark (dibra) 08:52, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes, easily verifiable and supported by sources. Just because military bases were also attacked alongside 20 villages and a music festival does not make this a military operation. That's a silly arguemnt, and those making it could argue that the September 11 attacks were a military operation as the Pentagon, US military HQ, was one of two targets struck. This shouldn't have been disputed to begin with, and this arguement is disruptive. Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 09:46, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
    Al Qaeda was not a government at war with the United States. Most of the hijackers were not combatants in the traditional sense. Senorangel (talk) 01:50, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Strong No – It is not an "Islamist terrorist attack" and to claim it so is merely propaganda talk. نعم البدل (talk) 02:12, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment: more sources:
    • "violent Palestinian Islamist terrorist attack"[90] (it was claimed earlier that this is an WP:SPS, but I can find no evidence of that)
    • "Islamist terror attack"[91] (it was claimed earlier that this is an "opinion piece", but I'm not sure that's an issue)
    • "nihilistic path of Islamist terror"[92]
    • "nihilist Islamist terrorism"[93]
    • An interview with Michael Milshtein,[94] where he claims that Yahya Sinwar operates from within an "apocalyptic" framework, where "[his] and all other Palestinian lives are in one big journey towards... freeing Jerusalem, Al-Aqsa, [and] eradicating Israel". According to Milshtein, the practical justifications that were given for this attack "are all causes, not reasons. The action itself is the reason. The Jihad [and] destabilizing Israeli society - that's what's important."[95]
    • "This was not a suicide mission, as the death of the attackers was not an integral part of the operation, a point of Islamic law that the planners of the operation had carefully considered...".[96] François Robere (talk) 15:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
    Seems like the community of editors are overwhelming in supporting the use of opinion pieces as sources for the Israeli-Hamas conflict, as long as the author has published other works in a relevant field, as can be seen in this discussion on an opinion piece by Tom Dannenbaum that I was involved in.
    The following opinion sources that you provided :
    1 from The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
    2 from Michael Milshtein who is a Professor, senior fellow at the Reichman University
    Definitely fits the standards of a citable source based on the standards of our community established on similar topics. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 16:50, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
    There's also the piece from John Raine,[97] a former British diplomat and analyst at the International Institute for Strategic Studies. François Robere (talk) 17:30, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
    John Raine is Senior Advisor for Geopolitical Due Diligence at the International Institute of Strategic Studies (IISS) specialising in the Middle East. He served for 33 years as a British diplomat which included postings in Kuwait, Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan - according to this introduction from the source you provided. In my view, that's a strong resume to lend credibility to this opinion.
    The editors who deny that Hamas is an Islamist terrorist organization, will need to overcome the above sources. They will either need to produce RS that goes the opposite direction, that states that Hamas is not an Islamist terrorist organization or demonstrate that these sources fail to rise to the level of credibility to be used on Wikipedia. Frankly, I haven't seen either of this being achieved so far. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 02:14, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
    I doubt he's the only person who has been posted in the Middle East, and therefore I see no reason why his opinion would be better than other opinions or analyses. His affiliation with a hawkish thinktank, which has been receiving majority funding from Sunni states, also leaves big question marks on his reliability as an encyclopaedic source. — kashmīrī TALK 08:28, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
@HollerithPunchCardI've already stated elsewhere that there is no consensus amongst WP:RS or world governments on whether Hamas is a terrorist organisation. No one needs to overcome your challenge. That's not how things work around here. Perhaps you should have a read of the current list criteria at the top of this page which details that one of the criterion for an event to be included on this page is that "The consensus amongst reliable sources describe the incident as "terrorism"". TarnishedPathtalk 10:48, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
If one searches for sources that use a specific term, and finds a few (whose reliability isn't established), that means nothing; it's selection bias and a form of cherrypicking. The proper way to analyze sources is to search for coverage of the event using generic search terms, and see how many sources include the term you're looking for. DFlhb (talk) 07:26, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment There is a list criteria at the top of this page which was decided by an RfC. One of the criterion for inclusion on this list is that "The consensus of reliable sources describe the incident as "terrorism"". If an event does not have a consensus of reliable source that describe it as "terrorism" as per the previous RfC, it does not meet the list criteria for inclusion in this list. TarnishedPathtalk 10:56, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Strong No The first thing is that the attack not only involved Hamas but 12 other groups and some of them were not "Islamists" but secular groups like PFLP and DFLP so it is not best to include it in the list of "Islamist terror attacks"

Also, Remember after the initial attack, many armed civilians managed to cross the border fence and enter the settlements to loot and murder the people & they also engaged some of the armed settlers.

Unlike ISIS and Al-Qaeda terror groups, Hamas's military wing "Al-Qassam" and political office officially denied killing civilians and said that the operation was "militarily" in nature not targeting civilians.

https://www.radio.gov.pk/08-11-2023/hammas-denies-its-involvement-in-killing-civilians-in-israel

https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2023/10/11/a-hamas-leader-refuses-to-admit-his-group-planned-to-kill-civilians

Yes, there was violence used against civilians by some parties involved but currently there is no un-disputed evidence available that the killing of civilians was primarily target by Al-Qassam brigade. Sam6897 (talk) 23:52, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

  • Yes Per user My very best wishes. This was a terrorist attack committed by Hamas, called the Islamic Resistance Movement.
Justanotherguy54 (talk) 12:22, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Was the attack Islamist, or was the perpetrator an Islamist organisation? — kashmīrī TALK 12:25, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Both. See User:François Robere and User:My very best wishes comments here. Justanotherguy54 (talk) 12:59, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Every attack by an Islamist organisation is an Islamist attack. It's nonsensical to suggest that some things an Islamist organization does are not done for religious purposes. Like, if you believe that an Islamist organization is capable of conducting a non-Islamist terrorist attack, that means you believe when Islamist organizations decide to commit terrorist attacks, they make some kind of decision about whether the attack is for God, or not for God. That makes no sense on its face. Imagine asking whether a white supremacist group's terrorist attack was for white supremacy reasons or non-white supremacy reasons. A terrorist attack by a Fooian group is a Fooian terrorist attack; that's not SYNTH, it's grammar. Levivich (talk) 16:00, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
This attack also involve secular groups like Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine and Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine so there is no point in calling it as a "Islamist" attack as a whole. The PFLP includes Christians and Marxists too. Sam6897 (talk) 16:17, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
That is a reasonable argument -- not all the attackers were Islamists. Personally, it doesn't persuade me, because this attack was mostly carried out by Hamas, secondarily by Islamic Jihad (also Islamist), and I think DFLP and PFLP are kind of "also-rans." In other words, if 80%+ of the attackers are Islamist, then I think we should list it as an Islamist attack (if we have such a list, that is). "Officially", Wikipedia calls "Operation Al-Aqsa Flood" the "2023 Hamas attack on Israel" because even though there were other groups, it was led by Hamas and mostly Hamas. An attack led by an Islamist group is an Islamist attack even if non-Islamists join in. Levivich (talk) 16:33, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Officially and Wikipedia aren't words that should be mixed together. Per WP:NOTSOURCE, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. TarnishedPathtalk 11:43, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
@Levivich Does a crime committed by a fundamentalist Buddhist automatically become a Buddhist crime? Just like that, without looking into the motives behind the crime? (Because we know perfectly well that Al Aqsa flood was not motivated by religion but by the political situation). — kashmīrī TALK 22:07, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
It's called "Al Aqsa Flood" but it's not motivated by religion??? It's named after the holiest site in Islam... Islamists by definition blend politics and religion; they want an Islamic state, a caliphate, just like the Islamic state. You can't take religion out of an Islamist action any more than you can take racism out of a white supremacist action. Everything the Nazis do is racist, everything the KKK does is for racist reasons. Everything an Islamist does is for an Islamic state, for Islamist reasons, for religious reasons. Levivich (talk) 00:43, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
they want an Islamic state, a caliphate, just like the Islamic state. no they don't. M.Bitton (talk) 01:17, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
They do - DFlhb (talk) 01:28, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
I don't see anything in that source that says so, but here are some sources that try to explain the difference between those that want a Caliphate and Hamas (a nationalist group). FYI, nationalism is considered a sin by the former.[98][99][100] M.Bitton (talk) 01:34, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
From my source, the goal is to establish an "Islamist Palestinian state". I'm aware there are differences between Hamas and ISIS, to me that's not the point, and nor is ISIS's opinion of Hamas. DFlhb (talk) 01:46, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
That's right, they want to establish a Palestinian state. That's the main point (the fact that it's Islamic is irrelevant). M.Bitton (talk) 01:48, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
The fact that it's Islamic is very relevant to the question of whether their terrorist attacks are Islamist terrorist attacks. Levivich (talk) 02:04, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Nope. As I already explained, Djihad is used by all Muslims to defend themselves against oppression. M.Bitton (talk) 02:11, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
If there is any doubt about who and what Hamas is, just look at Hamas Charter, you can read the English translation here via Yale, I'll add some emphasis:
  • Article 1: "The Islamic Resistance Movement: The Movement's programme is Islam. From it, it draws its ideas, ways of thinking and understanding of the universe, life and man. It resorts to it for judgement in all its conduct, and it is inspired by it for guidance of its steps."
  • Article 2: "... complete embrace of all Islamic concepts of all aspects of life, culture, creed, politics, economics, education, society, justice and judgement, the spreading of Islam, education, art, information, science of the occult and conversion to Islam."
  • Article 3: "The basic structure of the Islamic Resistance Movement consists of Moslems who have given their allegiance to Allah ... who know their duty towards themselves, their families and country. In all that, they fear Allah and raise the banner of Jihad ..."
  • Article 5: "By adopting Islam as its way of life, the Movement ... for Allah is its target, the Prophet is its example and the Koran is its constitution. Its extent in place is anywhere that there are Moslems who embrace Islam as their way of life everywhere in the globe."
  • Article 6: "The Islamic Resistance Movement is a distinguished Palestinian movement, whose allegiance is to Allah, and whose way of life is Islam. It strives to raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine for under the wing of Islam followers of all religions can coexist in security and safety where their lives, possessions and rights are concerned. In the absence of Islam, strife will be rife, oppression spreads, evil prevails and schisms and wars will break out."
It goes on for 30 more articles. It's right in their charter. They are, by definition, incapable of doing anything that is not for Allah, because by definition, everything they do is for Allah and Islamic (as they understand it). They want an Islamic government to rule over all Muslims everywhere. That's a caliphate. This organization, with this charter, is 100% religion 100% of the time, they say so themselves. Levivich (talk) 01:38, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
None of that contradicts what I said. In fact, it highlights the Hamas nationlism (which is considered a sin by those who want to create a Caliphate). Did you read my last comment? M.Bitton (talk) 01:43, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
We're just not reading the same language here. That WaPo article says the same thing I've been saying: Hamas is an "Islamic nationalist" group. "Islamic nationalist" means they want an Islamic state. If you think Hamas does not want to create an Islamic state -- a political nation with a government that follows Islamic law -- then I don't know what to to tell you. The fact that Hamas and ISIS have differences does not mean that Hamas is not Islamic nationalism.
If you think that Hamas's charter, where it says "resorts to [Islam] for judgement in all its conduct ... complete embrace of all Islamic concepts of all aspects of life [and] politics ... consists of Moslems who have given their allegiance to Allah ... adopting Islam as its way of life ... raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine" means that some of what they do is secular and not religious, I just don't know what to tell you.
Honestly, Hamas could not be any clearer about their religious motivations. Levivich (talk) 01:48, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Let me quote what you said: they want an Islamic state, a caliphate, just like the Islamic state
Now that I cited those sources, can you see the difference between wanting to create a Caliphate and being a nationalist group (like Hamas)? M.Bitton (talk) 01:51, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Its extent in place is anywhere that there are Moslems who embrace Islam as their way of life everywhere in the globe. Does that sound like just Palestine? Or everywhere in the globe? An Islamic Palestinian state is a type of Islamic state. Hamas wants an Islamic state. That's what I'm saying. Their motivations are religious, 100% of the time, as they say in their charter. Levivich (talk) 02:03, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
I don't need to answer that question or engage in OR since I already provided the RS that support what I said. Their motivation is the liberation of Palestine and Djihad is how they want to achieve it. The same principle applied to various Muslim liberation movements before them. M.Bitton (talk) 02:07, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
If you want to pretend Hamas's motivation is secular, go ahead. Levivich (talk) 02:14, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
I never said that. What I did say and prove (using RS) is that you statement about them wanting to create a Caliphate is factually incorrect. M.Bitton (talk) 02:17, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Again, if you want to pretend that Hamas doesn't want to create an Islamic state, with "complete embrace of all Islamic concepts of all aspects of life, culture, creed, politics," "Its extent in place is anywhere that there are Moslems who embrace Islam as their way of life everywhere in the globe," go ahead. If you want to believe that these words do not describe a Caliphate, fine. I don't even know what you think a "Caliphate" is if it's something other than an Islamic state. Levivich (talk) 02:21, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
I know the difference between wanting to create an Islamic state in the name of nationalism (like Hamas) and wanting to create a Caliphate in which nationalism a sin (like ISIS). Better still, I provided the RS that try to explain it. That's about as much as I can do and if it's not enough, then so be it. M.Bitton (talk) 02:29, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Oh, you mean Hamas is not pan-Islamic--i.e., Hamas wants separate Islamic nations vs. one Islamic nation? I don't know, they're the Gaza chapter of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is pan-Islamic, or was? This is getting off-topic, but a caliphate doesn't have to be pan-Islamic--it doesn't even have to be a state at all? Anyway, "caliphate" or "pan-Islamic" doesn't really matter... the point is that Hamas wants to create an Islamic state -- OK, an Islamic state in Palestine, fine -- because they're an Islamist group, and so their terrorist attacks, if they are "terrorist attacks," are Islamist terrorist attacks, not secular terrorist attacks. Levivich (talk) 02:36, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
The goal of Hamas is first and foremost the liberation of Palestine, which means that all their actions (organization, military attacks or even the creation of an Islamic state in Palestine) are just means to an end. M.Bitton (talk) 02:42, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Then they should update their name and charter. Levivich (talk) 02:54, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
  • No, it can't be, because the WP:OR concerns haven't been addressed (in fact they're mostly been ignored). How do we know this is Islamist terrorism, rather than nationalist terrorism? Hamas is also a Palestinian nationalist group. How do we know it's not an insurgency? Hamas is described as one, in this Taylor & Francis book. How do we know it's terrorism? I haven't seen someone establish that most RS consider it a terrorist attack. We look to sources, and I haven't seen most sources (or even "many" sources) describe it as an "Islamist terror attack". DFlhb (talk) 07:53, 13 November 2023 (UTC) solid argument by Marokwitz; edited DFlhb (talk) 11:50, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
    Levivich makes good points. I've searched the academic literature, and most papers present them as both Islamic and nationalistic, not "either/or". They want to establish an Islamist Palestinian state. So the distinction that I thought might be there, isn't there. I also no longer think that the "SYNTH" argument makes sense, since it's premised on separating the group from its actions. So, changing my vote to yes. DFlhb (talk) 19:47, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment - Important New Information (Nov 12) — On November 12, The Washington Post in this article (Archived due to paywall) as well as The Jerusalem Post in this article both announced that (Quoting TJP), “According to the Washington Post article, the evidence suggests they were planning on going much farther, hitting major cities and military bases, and could have ended up making it to the West Bank, where Hamas has allies in the form of many local armed Palestinian terrorist cells. as well as. (Quoting WaPo) “Hamas envisioned deeper attacks, aiming to provoke an Israeli war”. Two WP:RS sources say this attack was suppose to be much larger than it was. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 08:05, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
    Yeah, but we're discussing an actual event, one that actually took place, and not someone's fancies. — kashmīrī TALK 08:52, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
    Point still stands. It wasn’t suppose to be a terrorist attack, but rather a full invasion. Statements speak for themselves. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 09:39, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
    At least 44 nations have condemned the attack as terrorism, making it relevant to the scope of the article. The perspectives of those who disagree can be included in the article and do not constitute an argument against its inclusion. Marokwitz (talk) 10:35, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
    There are 195 countries on the planet today, 193 which are member states of the UN and 2 that are not. Please correct me if my figures are incorrect. According to those figures there are more nations that have not condemned the attack as terrorism than have. There is no consensus that the attacks were terrorism. Please also refer to list criteria at the top of this page, which details that one of the list criterion is "The consensus of reliable sources describe the incident as "terrorism"". TarnishedPathtalk 11:37, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
    By that logic, nothing would ever be terrorism though. Terrorism is a political category, created by states, applied by states, for the purpose of enabling state action; counterterrorism defines terrorism (see this scholarly-published book). If 44 countries have designated something as terrorism, then by definition it is terrorism, so I agree with Marokwitz. If there are differing views, they can be brought up too, but there's no reason to exclude. I think the remaining issue is whether it's "Islamic terrorism", not whether it's terrorism. DFlhb (talk) 11:49, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
    I think some key words that you used were "political category, created by states, applied by states". So when we look at which states define Hamas as a terrorist organisation, it's allies of the US and Israel. Arab League countries, Latin American countries, African countries, China, Russia, Brazil and many more have refused to label the operation as a "terrorist" attack. It's almost like there's some othering going on by Israel and its allies to justify something. TarnishedPathtalk 12:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
    Also please refer to the list criteria at the top of this page. One of the list criterion for an incident to be included in this list is that "The consensus of reliable sources describe the incident as "terrorism"". Almost none of the yes votes have been addressing this and by my reckoning the October 7 attack can't be included on this criterion alone. TarnishedPathtalk 12:13, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
    I hope you are aware that most reliable sources, such as the BBC, never use the word "terrorism" in their own voice, only with attribution. Their official guideline states, "We should not use the term 'terrorist' without attribution."
    If an event is designated as terrorism by 44 countries, it means that it falls within the scope of this article. This doesn't imply that we, as Wikipedia, are stating it IS terrorism or IS not terrorism, as this is a highly subjective term. Rather, it makes the topic notable for an article ABOUT terrorism, while discussing both viewpoints. Marokwitz (talk) 13:19, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
    @Marokwitz you writting "If an event is designated as terrorism by 44 countries, it means that it falls within the scope of this article" is incorrect. You need to refer to the current list criterion at the top of this page. Your arguments about BBC, etc I believe were addressed in the previous RfC which decided the current list criteria. TarnishedPathtalk 14:07, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
    @Levivich, who proposed the criterion in the original RfC, has !voted 'Yes' here, so I assume your interpretation of the criterion is not aligned with their intention. Your interpretation would lead to exclusion of virtually all the events from this list. Marokwitz (talk) 19:03, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
    @Marokwitz, there is no interpretation to be had. The current list criteria is crystal clear and any attempt to impose other scope to this list is pure fantasy. The RfC proposal was well supported. @Levivich's retrospective feelings on it do not affect this discussion, the outcome is the only thing that matters. TarnishedPathtalk 02:03, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment. If a Christian person has committed a murder, can an encyclopaedia call it, "a Christian murder"? — kashmīrī TALK 08:55, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
    • If a person was motivated, inspired or enabled by an extremist interpretation of their religion - any religion - then we can state as much. François Robere (talk) 09:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
      But you will need good sources for that. Sources that only state that he "committed a murder" and "he was Christian" will be insufficient. And obviously we'll need sources that would carry out a good, in-depth analysis of motivation/inspiration/enablement, and not just parrot one another. — kashmīrī TALK 16:54, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
    Terrible analogy. First, "Islamist" doesn't mean "Islamic," so the analogue isn't "Christian," it's "Christian fundamentalist." Second, a terrorist attack is not the same thing as a murder.
    If a Christian fundamentalist organization commits a terrorist attack, then yes, that's a "Christian fundamentalist terrorist attack."
    If a Christian organization commits a terrorist attack, same thing. If the Catholic Church commits a terrorist attack, that would be a Catholic terrorist attack. When the KKK, a Christian organization, commits a terrorist attack, that's a Christian terrorist attack, and we list it at Christian terrorism. Levivich (talk) 18:23, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes: At least 44 nations have decried the Hamas attack as terrorism ; Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad who joined forces on this attack are both Islamist groups, offshoots of the Muslim Brotherhood. This is a mainstream view in scholarship and reliable sources covering this attack. [101] . There are many other examples: [102]

    the most ambitious assault in the history of the Islamist movement

    Marokwitz (talk) 10:13, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
    Majority of governments (150+) does not consider it a terror attack and this discussion is not about terror or not. it is about whether it is a islamist terror attack or not.
    The attack included 12 groups besides Hamas and also armed Gazan civilians who joined in latter part after the initial assault. Hamas claimed that there fighters were ordered to target only military. they blamed civilians causlaties on friendly fire by responding israeli forces and clashes between armed Gazan civilians and "armed" Israeli settlers.
    Also, the attack include secular marxist groups too as i stated above so it is not an "islamist terror attack". Sam6897 (talk) 19:20, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
  • No: The mass killings of October 7 were mostly carried out by the Israelis themselves. See Friendly fire 7 October.Ghazaalch (talk) 13:56, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes: Hamas is an Islamic terror organization, and its attack on October 7 is one of the worst Islamic terror attacks, killing hundreds of innocent civilians. David Shay (talk) 14:47, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes the group called the Islamic Resistance Movement actively seeking out civilians to kill and capture civilians would be Islamic Terrorism. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 15:10, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Strong Yes - this is clearly a terrorist attack, either a series of terrorist attacks or one massive terrorist attack. 44 governments around the world officially consider it a terrorist attack. Most of the victims were civilians not military, not that attacking the Israeli military should not be considered terrorist attacks either. QuintusPetillius (talk) 16:33, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
    Majority of governments (150+) does not consider it a terror attack and this discussion is not about terror or not. it is about whether it is a islamist terror attack or not.
    The attack included 12 groups besides Hamas and also armed Gazan civilians who joined in latter part after the initial assault. Hamas claimed that there fighters were ordered to target only military. they blamed civilians causlaties on friendly fire by responding israeli forces and clashes between armed Gazan civilians and "armed" Israeli settlers.
    Also, the attack include secular marxist groups too as i stated above so it is not an "islamist terror attack". Sam6897 (talk) 19:18, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment There is a inclusion criteria is at the top of the page. It was decided by an RfC. It is :
As has been demonstrated by myself and others, there is no consensus amongst reliable sources about whether this was terrorism or not so this can not be included on this list. People who are voting yes along the lines of 'Hamas is a terrorist organisation and this was a bad thing' aren't addressing the inclusion criteria. TarnishedPathtalk 05:02, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
  • No. Is Hamas a non-state actor? They were at one point the democratically elected government of the Palestinians (though there haven't been elections since then). Hamas has been widely described as the "governing" authority of Gaza Strip(CFR,NYT,CIA Factbook,Brookings,Vox). Freedom House[103] and The Economist[104] have even gone as far as to say that Hamas-run Gaza Strip is a de-facto state (which I personally disagree with).VR talk 21:22, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
    What does whether they're a non-state actor or the governing authority have to do with anything? Levivich (talk) 01:16, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
    It's frankly a more convincing argument than most of the cookie cutter yes votes which go along the lines of 'Hamas is an Islamic terrorist organisation and what they did was bad'. TarnishedPathtalk 01:30, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
    What? What does non-state actor or governing authority have to do with the list criteria (which you yourself have repeatedly reminded editors about in this discussion)? Putting the list criteria aside, what does non-state actor or governing authority have to do with whether something was or was not an Islamist terrorist attack? It seems you and VR are under the mistaken belief that in order for it to be terrorism, it has to be done by a non-state actor? That is incorrect. Levivich (talk) 01:48, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
    It has nothing to do with the list criteria and neither do almost all of the yes votes which merely assert that Hamas bad, but at least they've making some semblance of an argument which isn't along the lines of 'I don't like the thing'. TarnishedPathtalk 02:14, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
    Levivich state terrorism is controversial topic, whose very existence is debated (see the lead of United States and state terrorism). In fact, unlike articles like Islamist terrorism we don't have a single article on wikipedia called "X state terrorism" - pretty much all article titles have to be couched as "X and state terrorism" given that allegations of state terrorism against that country are disputed by RS. In fact, some (most?) definitions of terrorism explicitly define it to only have been committed by non-state actors[105]. Are there any military operations undertaken by states at List of major terrorist attacks]? VR talk 03:42, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Strong yes

When almost every major world leader from Biden to Pope Francis calls this a terrorist attack not listing it as such destroys Wikipedia reputation as an honest broker. The only way for Wikipedia to keep its Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is by listing an obvious terrorist attack that is condemend as such one. Even Russia is calling this terrorism despite their alliance with Iran. https://tass.com/politics/1697003 "Russia is not calling on Israel to stop fighting against terrorists, but is asking it not to fight against civilians, Russian Permanent Representative to the United Nations Vasily Nebenzya said on Wednesday.

"We are calling on you not to abandon the fight on terrorism but to fight against terrorists rather than against civilians," he said at a UN Security Council meeting.""


Let's see if those who Wikipedia consensus deems to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources and the first one ABC News conferms it was a terrorist attack. ABC News doesn't even have a footnote limiting its consensus reliability.

"Hamas terrorists launched an unprecedented surprise attack on Israel on Oct. 7" https://abcnews.go.com/International/timeline-surprise-rocket-attack-hamas-israel/story?id=103816006

As a side note since Numerous more website refer to the October 7th terrorist attacks as such than most of these hits. just check up google using the search words (terrorist attack october 7th hamas music) turns up 21,000,000 hits. Typing in (terrorist 2023 Khar bombing) turns up only 363,000 hits.

This is an existential threat to Wikipedia. If Wikipedia doesn't refer to this as a Terrorist attack it will loose all credibility, and forever damage it's reputation as an antisemtic biased website. Wikipedia already suffered from attacks last year over its biased Holocaust coverage regarding Poland. And this will just confirm in the minds of all decent, knowledgeable and honest people that Wikipedia has a major problem. Unfortunately for Wikipedia every second they universially across wiki, don't treat an obvious terrorist attack as one, soley because the majority of the victims were Jews, they will loose more and more credibility till there is none left..

@Yestyest2000 you made this vote two days ago. Can you sign it please. Kind Regards, TarnishedPathtalk 01:54, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "'We are in a war,' Netanyahu says after Hamas launches surprise attack". NBC News. 7 October 2023.
  2. ^ Salam, Yasmine (2023-10-10). "Hamas group explained: Here's what to know about the group behind the deadly attack in Israel". NBC News. Retrieved 2023-10-16.
  3. ^ Schecter, Anna (2023-10-13). "'Top secret' Hamas documents show that terrorists intentionally targeted elementary schools and a youth center". NBC News. Retrieved 2023-10-16.
  4. ^ "New details on Hamas' surprise terror attack revealed". NBC News. Retrieved 2023-10-16.
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks/Archive_9&oldid=1197355314"