Jump to content

Talk:Right-wing terrorism/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Article

This article was deleted in May 2006,[1] and became a re-direct to Terrorism. Although I have not read the earlier article, this topic has notablity and can be written from a neutral point of view using reliable sources, and I am therefore recreating the article per Wikipedia:Recreation of previously deleted pages. Also, I have archived the talk page which related to the earlier article. TFD (talk) 18:16, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

POV

Certain sections of this article are nowere near neutral, hence the tag. I`ll go through the sources used as the first one i checked did not support the statement it is used for mark (talk) 15:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

You need to be specific otherwise editors have no way of knowing what you find to be POV. Please explain before restoring tag. TFD (talk) 16:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Below is a comparison of the sentence you tagged "not in citation given" and the source used. It appears that the tag is incorrect.
Right-wing terrorism draws its inspiration from a variety of ideologies and beliefs, including neo-fascism, racism and opposition to foreigners and immigration. Incidents of this type of terrorism have been sporadic with little or no international cooperation.[2]
Right wing terrorists have a variety of different...ideologies.... is often associated with neo-fascist movements.... often have strong overtones of racist and anti-foreigner, anti-immigrant sentiment.... isolated attacks of right-wing terrorism occur.... do not make it onto the radar screen as being associated with international terrorism.[3]
TFD (talk) 18:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Please do not remove tags without discussion, look at what it says on the tag. This is certainly POV Typically right-wing terrorists are skinheads or right-wing hooligans it may be in the source but is also inaccurate, still looking things over btw mark (talk) 19:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I do not see Timothy McVeigh described as a right-wing extremist in this source? Confronting right-wing extremism and terrorism in the USA it does in fact say he was not affiliated to any extremist groups mark (talk) 21:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
And in fact this source Moghadam, Assaf. The roots of terrorism. New York: Infobase Publishing, 2006. ISBN 0791083071 actually says that there are few readily identifiable right wing terrorist groups. It also says that not just skinheads are involved, but also Intellectual guides, did you miss that TFD? mark (talk) 21:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

This might by a useful source: Protection officer training manual - Page 198. Not very academic, but lists useful generalizations on left- and right-wing terrorism. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 19:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

You are right, it is not a reliable source. However there is nothing in it that is inconsistent with what is written in the article. TFD (talk) 20:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I did not say the source was unreliable per WP:RS, I said it was not academic, it is more like a textbook. In fact I think we should use it. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 14:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
mark nutley, the source says "although McVeigh may not have had any formal affiliation with extremist groups, there is evidence to suggest that he was a denizen of the subterranean world of the far right." In any case it is not POV to call him a right-wing extremist. The article text does not say he "was affiliated to any extremist groups". TFD (talk) 21:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Well don`t you think you ought to have a source which actually calls him a right-wing extremist? and not use one which has supposition that he may have been involved with the far right? mark (talk) 21:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
  • The bombing was planned and carried out by Timothy McVeigh, a twenty-six-year- old US Army veteran with ties to domestic right-wing extremist groups.
  • Second, McVeigh viewed the increasingly strict regulations set on the purchasing of guns as a wake-up call for right-wing extremists.
  • Although McVeigh may not have had any formal affiliation with extremist groups, there is evidence to suggest that he was a denizen of the subterranean world of the far right.
  • “After Operation Desert Shield/Storm in 1990- 1991, some returning military veterans—including Timothy McVeigh—joined or associated with right- wing extremist groups.”
  • “McVeigh was not a lone extremist; instead, he was trained to make himself look like a lone extremist,” wrote former FBI agent German. “It's a right-wing terrorism technique that comes complete with written instruction manuals.
  • No — but the broader meaning of that T-shirt is critical to understanding what happened in Oklahoma City as well as the mind-set of violent right-wing extremists like McVeigh.

Those are excerpts that pop up in Google books.[4]   Will Beback  talk  21:45, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Cool, no shortage of sources for that then, thanks :) mark (talk) 21:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I've reviewed the Aubrey book, and the remarks above. The "not in source" tag is erroneous, and I see nothing in the remarks above to support the POV tag. I have removed them for these reasons.  – OhioStandard (talk) 02:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Questionable edit

mark nutley, could you please explain this edit. *You have replaced the source from a section about right-wing terrorism, the name of the article, in a book about terrorism, to a section about the Michigan militias in a book about right-wing extremism.

  • All the information in the new source was contained in the old source.
  • The old source was published by the academic press while the new source was not.
  • You mention McVeigh's tenuous connection with the Michigan militias, while ignoring his membership in the Ku Klux Klan, and his views including obsession with the Turner Diaries.
  • You removed the term "right-wing extremist" even while using as a source a book actually called Faces of right wing extremism that lists McVeigh and calls him an extremist (p. 154).
  • You had asked for sources that McVeigh has been described as a right wing extremist and in fact the first hit on Google Books for "right-wing extremist Timothy McVeigh" is for a book published by Polity Press.[5]
  • You should follow the footnoting style which is recommended.

In writing articles one should use the most relevant sources from the highest quality sources and reflect what they say say. Doing otherwise is the surest way to inject POV into an article.

TFD (talk) 23:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Demographics

An editor has re-added a "dubious" cite tag with the notation, "re-added "dubious" tag. Show us the quote, not just the page number". The text is "Typically, right-wing terrorists are white power skinheads or right-wing hooligans". The cite is "Right-wing terrorism" in The roots of terrorism, which says, "The core of this movement, which includes skinheads, right-wing hooligans...."[6] Please note that it should have been fairly simple to find this quote. Ironically the editor who is now challenging the quote had earlier added the term "white power"[7] which is not in the original text and I will remove. TFD (talk) 04:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Yes, it would have been fairly simple to find the quote if the link had been provided earlier. All that was provided was the book title and page number, which doesn't help unless you have the book in front of you.Spylab (talk) 04:04, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Is that some sort of policy? You can question a source because all you have is the name of the book and the page number? By the way, why did you change the text if you could not read the source? Not every source appears in Google books btw. Incidentally, if you are going to provide links to sources, could you please maintain the recommended footnoting system and provide the link where the book is listed. TFD (talk) 04:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Non neutral POV

The second paragraph of this article is clearly attempting to gloss over the issues, when compared to the similar left wing article:

Right: "Right-wing terrorists generally are inspired by 19th century and early 20th century nationalist writers such as Arthur de Gobineau, Houston Stewart Chamberlain and Heinrich von Treitschke."

Left: "Their ideology is heavily influenced by Marxist and other communist and socialist thought.[2] Narodnaya Volya, a 19th century terrorist group that killed tsar Alexander II of Russia in 1881"


Right: The core of this movement includes neo-fascist skinheads, right-wing hooligans, youth sympathisers and intellectual guides who believe that the state must rid itself of foreign elements in order to protect rightful citizens Left:"Their ideology is heavily influenced by Marxist and other communist and socialist thought..." "...and developed the concept of propaganda by the deed is a major influence"


In every possible way, at every possible turn, this article does its utmost to paint left wing events as cold, calculated and planned from within some hidden lair. Whereas the right-wing page, THIS page, just completely and utterly whitewashes over everything that could be counted as even a tiny bit make it sound like there was a coordinated effort or any real malice to it.

I have added sections on 9/11 (rightwing muslim), The Trouble in ireland (rightwing christianity), The Ku Klux Klan (rightwing christianity) and the Assassination of Dr. George Tiller by Scott Roeder (Rightwing Christianity) Chardansearavitriol (talk) 11:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Could you please read no original research. Wikipedia articles are based on sources, not our own opinions. May I suggest you read the literature provided in the sources before adding to the article. TFD (talk) 14:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Oh IM SORRY. I didnt realise that the KKK was original reserach. I didnt realise that the Southern Poverty Law center was original reasearch. Unfortunately, you are hiding the truth, and purposely changing these pages. Its obvious. If you refuse to let any righ twing terrorists, of which tehre are many, and yet plug anyone who you imagine as left into the other page, you are being fully non neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chardansearavitriol (talk • contribs) 11:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

You need sources in order to add sections to the article. You may wish to read these articles and the sources provided for them. The SPLC does not refer to any of these groups or their actions as "right-wing terrorism". Right-wing terrorism is not terrorism carried out by right-wing groups, but is carried out with the objective of replacing established governments with nationalist or fascist-oriented governments. Left-wing terrorism aims to establish communist government.

Al Qaeda seeks to establish an Islamic Republic and is therefore considered to be a religious terrorist group. Ulster Loyalists, Klansmen and anti-abortionists do not seek to establish new governments and are grouped under nationalist and single issue terrorism.

If you can find sourced information about right-wing terrorism then by all means add it to the article. The problem is that few sources exist.

TFD (talk) 17:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Removed

The second paragraph of the intro. No original research please. In addition, Moghadam is not a reliable source; two published books, and the one frequently mentioned here is Six years old. I can find no meaningful information about this man, even on the amazon linked site. Please review reliable sources before posting extrapolations of their words on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chardansearavitriol (talk • contribs) 11:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

If something reflects the source provided it is not original research. Also the fact that a book from an academic publisher is 6 years old and the writer is not a celebrity is no reason to exclude. Could you please follow the links provided in the Welcome section of your talk page. TFD (talk) 16:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but its not because he's not "A celebrity" its because he's not at all notable. Only this and the left wing terrorism page reference him on wikipedia. Im also a bit confused on why you would take so much of your writing from him. Is there no newer source? Or better known source? This wouldnt be a problem if you werent clearly, intentionally using leading language in this and the left wing terrorism article.

You are actively attempting to steer the conversation by portraying the right wing as disorganized and incoherent, and act as if the left was a calculating monstrositiy. You skim everything out of this article that you can, and cram page after page of ultra detailed informaiton on world-wide leftwing terrorism. And I do not, for one second, believe that you could only find ONE reference that could be linked to without being in a book. Its entirely dishonest and you know it is. The one you linked to is from Nineteen Eighty-Five (1985!) Nothing newer at all? Not one newer website about right wing terrorism?

"Right-wing terrorists generally are inspired by 19th century and early 20th century nationalist writers" .... "right-wing hooligans, youth sympathisers and intellectual guides who believe that the state must rid itself of foreign elements in order to protect rightful citizens." ... "However, they usually lack a rigid ideology." Thats on this page.
"Left-wing terrorism, sometimes called Marxist-Leninist terrorism or revolutionary/left-wing terrorism is a tactic used to overthrow capitalism and replace it with Marxist-Leninist or socialist government." This is the first line of the leftwing article. but its not even the first example of this gross exaggeration!
"It has been suggested that Communist terrorism be merged into this article or section. (Discuss)

See also: Anarchist terrorism and Eco-terrorism"

"This kind of "liberating violence" is designed to spur the revolution on, often on the assumption that the lower classes will rise up once the weakness of the upper classes is exposed."

You are whitewashing and leading people in a completely dishonest, rather pityable manner. Why dont you stop playing games, and act like a responsible community member by not going out of your way to pretend one side is monstrous and ignoring the other side's actions.

You have deleted any reference to anything before 1980. As if there was never any right wing terrorism before 1980. Yet find the time to put up detailed analysis of everything that could possibly be linked to the left. So why were my posts linking to the SPLC and talking about the attacks that have led the primary focus of the US military for the past decade not okay and "original research", but Books by Some Guys and One Website from a quarter century ago are perfectly valid? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chardansearavitriol (talk • contribs) 03:00, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I removed your edit because it lacked sources.[8] You should also be aware that "right-wing terrorism" is not terrorism committed by right-wingers, but terrorism committed in order to set up a right wing state. Ulster terrorists and the KKK committed terrorist acts in order to preserve not change the social structure. As editors we are supposed to ensure that articles reflect the literature. If you read Talk:Radical Right, Talk:Communist terrorism and Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes, you will see that I also oppose editors who take a right-wing perspective to editing. TFD (talk) 03:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Just to clarify your position here (in good faith), right-wing terrorism is only terrorism with the goal of setting up a right wing state (you have a source that defines it that way), but does the same parallel apply to left-wing terrorism? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 07:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
The source is provided in the article, and here is the link. It says, "Their aim is the overthrow of existing regimes and replacement by nationalist or fascist oriented governments". The same source also defines left-wing terrorism in a similar manner. [9] From what I have read, these definitions seem standard. --TFD (talk) 18:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I saw the reference. Thanks. As always, I don't agree that this is a unanimous definition, but that's a different issue. I was just surprised to see that included in the definition, because it doesn't seem like it's being applied at left-wing terrorism. Personally, I don't care much, since I fundamentally don't like either article, I was just curious. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 22:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
The article left-wing terrorism says it "is a tactic used to overthrow capitalism and replace it with Marxist-Leninist or socialist government" and has the same source. If you believe that this is not a "unanimous definition", then please provide another source. TFD (talk) 04:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Archive 1Archive 2

Reference needed

Passed by this page today and noted the line "The attacks on Norway was endorsed by American neo-Nazi media personalities Glenn Beck and Michael Savage." could we get references to these endorsements or comments of commendation? It would look better then having an non-sourced, non-neutral comment as it is above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeometricObjectsInSpace (talk • contribs) 01:21, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Left-wing terrorism which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 11:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

RfC

Light bulb iconBAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 17:15, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

FBI Involvement / Commission

It would be informative to include a section that covers the FBI's involvement in planning, coordinating, funding, and providing material support for right wing domestic terrorist "plots" which the FBI then acts against to indict the right wing domestics that join them in the FBI's plots.

There have been a number of newspaper articles covering the way that the FBI locates right wing extremists which express desires to commit Christian terrorism against the United States or against targets within the United States, after which the FBI "cultivates" the individuals (one such reference http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/opinion/sunday/terrorist-plots-helped-along-by-the-fbi.html ) and provides the hotel accomodations, planning, funding, transportation, and acquires the materials -- bombs, weapons et al. -- and then goes forward with the right wing terrorist plot until the last moment when it "rounds up" the individuals that the FBI "cultivated."

The vast majority of domestic right wing Christianic terrorism committed against the United States is at core committed by FBI agents which then "thwart" their own plots. The policy of doing so manages to sucker-in and indict hapless, low-intelligence right wingers who express desires to attack the United States but lack funding, planning, or other means to actually go forward with their wishful thinking.

Whether such a policy is useful or not or whether it actually gets bad guys off the streets is often debated, but the fact that the FBI constitutes the worse domestic terrorist organization operating within the United States should at least get a summary description.

Opinions? Comments? Damotclese (talk) 18:49, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

You need to get high quality sources that provide a fair assessment of this practice along with informed opinion. I notice in the article you linked to that the judge handed out a sentence of 25 years, which tends to vindicate the operation. Have any legal scholars written about this? TFD (talk) 00:53, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Northern Ireland

A section has been added about Northern Ireland that is unsourced.

Ulster Unionists are not generally considered to be right-wing terrorists. They do not fit the definition in reliable sources as reported in the lead of this article: "draws its inspiration from a variety of ideologies and beliefs, including neo-fascism, neo-Nazism, racism.... Incidents of this type of terrorism have been sporadic with little or no international cooperation. Their actions are generally poorly coordinated and there are few identifiable organizations.... The objective of right-wing terrorism is the overthrow existing governments and their replacement with nationalist or fascist-oriented governments. The core of this movement includes neo-fascist skinheads, right-wing hooligans, youth sympathisers and intellectual guides...."

The driving force of violence in Northern Ireland has always been ethnic conflict. In order to reinstate this section, we need to show that most scholars consider the basis of the conflict to be left-right ideology and provide sources.

TFD (talk) 17:09, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

If you look on the page Unionism in the United Kingdom under the sections where it lists political parties in the UK that support Unionism, all of the parties are right-wing. Loyalism, in this case Ulster loyalism, is a right wing ideology as well. Parties that support loyalist paramilitaries in Northern Ireland are classified as far-right on the Ulster loyalism page. Also almost every political party that believes in Ulster loyalism is right-wing. British nationalism, Ulster loyalism, and British unionism are all right-wing political ideologies groups like the Ulster Volunteer Force and Ulster Defence Association believe in. Loyalist paramilitary groups in Northern Ireland are the best examples of right-wing terrorism and are some of the most active right-wing terrorists. Neo-nazism, fascism, and racism aren't the only right-wing ideologies out there. Saying the Troubles in Northern Ireland is an ethnic conflict isn't entirely correct. My family is Scotch-Irish and came to Ulster durring the plantation and my ancestors and my entire family support Irish republicanism and have a number of ancestors in the Irish Volunteers and the original Irish Republican Army and even some distant cousins that were in the Provisional IRA. Can we please put the section about Northern Ireland back up if I better source my work? Reverend Mick man34 ♣ (talk) 14:45, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
I read your user page, it is quite interesting. As the sources used for the article show, right-wing terrorism does not mean right wing+terrorism. If it did, the article would be tendentious synthesis.
Could you find any books about terrorism that indicate the conflict in Northern Ireland was driven by a left-right division? Most sources see the conflict as ethnic in nature. The fact that they largely ceased terrorism after the Good Friday accord is evidence of that. The accord did not turn NI into a right-wing state. A minority place the roots of the conflict in religious differences.
Note that the Irish terrorists are already discussed under Nationalist terrorism.
TFD (talk) 22:04, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
I will put the section back and properly source it. If it does still not meet your standards feel free to remove it and contact me on my talk page. Cheers. Reverend Mick man34 ♣ (talk) 14:45, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I checked your sources:

  • bpp.org is the website of the British People's Party, not a [[WP:RS}reliable source]] (rs)
  • national-front.org is the website of the National Front, not rs
  • no page no. for Peter Taylor's book for classification as right-wing terrorists
  • McGarry and O'Leary do not analyze the loyalists in terms of right-wing terrorism
  • David Icke's website is not a reliable source
  • An Sionnach Fionn does not call them right-wing terrorists
  • The Guardian does not call them right-wing terrorists

None of the sources classify loyalist violence as "right-wing terrorism" and the sources used in the article classify it differently. They differ from right-wing terrorists in fundamental ways: their groups are larger, better organized and have international affiliations. They "claim responsibility" for their attacks. Their objectives relate to an ethnic dispute, and they are willing to negotiate. Their choice of targets differed.

TFD (talk) 17:05, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it is too simplistic and not quite accurate to classify loyalist terrorism as right-wing terrorism. Perhaps it would be relevant to mention (only if reliable sources are provided) that specific British right-wing terrorists had (or have) ties to specific loyalist terrorists and leave it at that.Spylab (talk) 17:52, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
There are still no sources categorizing the Ulster terrorists as right-wing terrorism, so I will remove it again. Before re-adding it I suggest editors read the sources on terrorism provided for the article listed under "References." They show that right-wing terrorism has a clear definition and group loyalist terrorism under nationalist terrorism. Nationalists btw can be right-wing, but the motivation of their terror is ethnic, national or regional conflict. TFD (talk) 23:51, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Right-wing terrorism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Charleston

Charleston shooting was politically motivated, I am not even sure why this is up for debate? https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2015/06/26/the-charleston-shooter-is-a-terrorist-the-federal-government-should-charge-him-as-one/ Beejsterb (talk) 02:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

When I said that, I was talking about this section of the article right here. Not sure if it's been resolved already (haven't exactly been following that part of the topic) but the open-ended nature of the section tells me it hasn't yet. Parsley Man (talk) 03:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
It seems to fit all the criteria of right-wing terrorism, but we need a source to include it. Note too that there can never be certainty about motivation with lone attacks. And there may be BLP issues since no trial has been held yet. TFD (talk) 04:28, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that too. Parsley Man (talk) 05:53, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Name of article

An editor moved this article on the basis that we should avoid labels such as terrorism. The guideline however is about labels for individuals and groups not for concepts. TFD (talk) 17:50, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Islamic terrorism?

Many (not all) Islamic terrorist attacks are conducted by Salafists and others with similar far-right wing ideologies. Should these be posted here? Beejsterb (talk) 03:04, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

No because they are not seen as motivated by right-wing ideology. I agree though that many middle Eastern terrorists are not religiously motivated, but have ethnic/nationalist motivations. In that sense, religion is part of ethnic identity rather than a motivating force. But that's an issue to discuss on the Islamic terrorism talk page. TFD (talk) 03:48, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Right-wing terrorism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:55, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

US list of incidents

@HastyBriar321: said this in an edit summary:

i don't know about you but the source, as i'm reading it now, makes no specific mention of any of these incidents.

How to find the list of incidents:

  1. Visit the source
  2. Find the graph - you may need to scroll up a bit
  3. Hover over the little turquoise dots
  4. Here's the source saying the Portland train stabbing was a far-right terrorist attack: http://i.imgur.com/WQL7xrC.png

Hope that clears things up.

--ChiveFungi (talk) 11:21, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

McVeigh and the right?

McVeigh wanted to limit the power/intrusion of government. This is not right wing terrorism at all. Even other right wing groups like those of mussolini and hitler at least wanted to replace the current government with a new regime that was stronger, more integral, and corporate. This is not McVeigh. I have removed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.221.117 (talk) 23:45, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

That's an OPINION, not a "fact." The information was cited, and you need to show that reputable sources agree with your opinion. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 23:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Articles are based on sources and you need other sources to show that the conclusions are wrong. BTW, McVeigh was a great admirer of Hitler. TFD (talk) 04:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

It is well-known that Hitler was a left-winger. McVeigh was a left-wing terrorist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.10.2.5 (talk) 21:19, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

That is a fringe view. TFD (talk) 21:47, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
A "fringe" view is putting it mildly. It's nothing but the ravings of uneducated conspiracy theorists, not educated scholars. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 14:26, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Hitler's first targets were the Communists in Germany whom he had executed... As far as I know, being fervently Anti-Communist, as were Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, and their cohorts, puts one on the other side of the spectrum from "left-wing." As noted by the commenters above, this original assertion of Hitler being "Left-wing" seems to have no foundation. Certainly, Timothy McVeigh was never considered a left-winger. Being anti-government is embodied in several ideologies, anarchism being the most apparent. Libertarianism, which as a doctrine primarily of the right is thoroughly premised on government minimalism, but Libertarians are generally not regarded as terrorists and had nothing to do with the dogmas of McVeigh. McVeigh's affiliation with anarchy was especially right-wing, para-military, which in the the 1980s became a specific problem in the U.S. He was never associated with the Left. Stevenmitchell (talk) 08:17, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Portland Stabbing Correction?

"The 2017 Portland train attack (2 killed),"

I'm pretty sure that the Portland stabber was confirmed to be a Bernie supporter who was agaisnt Trump and was trying to frame Trump supporters as being violent. Seems like it should be taken off the list.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/27/portland-double-murder-white-supremacist-muslim-hate-speech

According to the source on the wiki page for his right wing extremism, he was apolitical eight years ago, and recent tweets supporting Bernie Sanders and Jill. Then suddenly he starts posting Nazi memes and whatnot. It really seems like he was either neutral or left wing. Either way, it's a bit contentious and I would be hesitant to put it on a list of right wing terrorist acts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8806:3200:4B0:486A:CBD1:13DC:7CD5 (talk) 21:10, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

There is an article in the Oregonian explaining his beliefs. Note that classification of terrorism is determined by motivation for their actions, which in this case was hatred of Muslims, which is a right-wing position not shared by Sanders or Stein. He didn't carry out the attacks in order to advance universal health care, a higher minimum wage or lower tuition fees. Christian originally supported Sanders because he saw him as the anti-globalization candidate and because he hated Clinton, before switching his support to Trump, then changing his mind again and not voting. TFD (talk) 17:34, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Article needs update - three terrorist attacks in one week

This is really out of date. Just last week we had:

Volunteer Marek 18:13, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Removing my addition about the Tallahassee shooting.

Further information seem to place more emphasis on the shooter's hatred for women as the motive for the shooting rather than his political beliefs. (e.g., https://www.tallahassee.com/story/news/2018/11/05/yoga-shooting-scott-beierle-fsu-strozier-library-gunman-myron-may-parallel-paths/1892816002/?fbclid=IwAR2m9RRKpgeFR-syOg0BIljW6HzN0xv3e0mg1WyUew1dZxceJptt1pd6y9Y)

So, having rethought it, I am removing my addition to the chart listing the shooting as right-wing terrorism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:4C3:4081:4DB2:53D:B6CC:50E5:CAA5 (talk) 19:30, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Updating and US Section

It seems odd to me that there is no section on right-wing terrorism in the US for this article. There are several cases mentioned in the History section but there are more, recent and historical, examples.

The introductory section is contradicting what has been said in the talk page archives. It says that "The core of this movement includes neo-fascist skinheads, right-wing hooligans, youth sympathisers and intellectual guides who believe that the state must rid itself of foreign elements in order to protect rightful citizens." It seems to me that this would include the KKK as well as similar groups such at white power groups and various militias. It would also seem to include individuals/groups who have worked to terrorize immigrants and various religious groups such as, arguably, the recent shooting at the Sikh temple as well as a number of recent mosque burnings all of which are being considered cases of domestic terrorism by the FBI. This needs to be looked at but a discussion needs to be had. Ayzmo (talk) 17:48, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

You could add a US section. I would caution however against detailing the actions of specific individuals or groups until we know that experts have classified their actions as right-wing terrorism, even though the temple killings appear to fit the definition. TFD (talk) 18:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


I would like to suggest that we could add a few more confirmed cases of right wing terrorism to the US list.

Matthew Riehl killed 1 injured 4 in Killing of Douglas County Deputy Sheriff in Colorado.

sources: http://www.newsweek.com/colorado-shooter-matthew-riehl-shared-alt-right-memes-facebook-767643

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/colorado-shooter-matthew-riehl-shared-alt-right-memes/ar-BBHM8GY

https://heavy.com/news/2017/12/matthew-reihl-zach-parrish/

https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2018/01/02/fox-news-report-colorado-gunman-ignores-his-white-supremacist-connections/218943

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2017/12/31/multiple- deputies-down-after-being-called-scene-denver/993297001/


William Atchison killed 2 students Aztec High School Shooting in New Mexico.

Sources: https://www.thedailybeast.com/new-mexico-school-shooter-had-secret-life-on-pro-trump-white-supremacy-sites

http://www.newsweek.com/william-atchison-led-double-life-online-749363

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aztec_High_School_shooting


Nicholas Giampa. Killing of 2 parents of his girlfriend in Reston, Virginia.

Sources: https://heavy.com/news/2018/01/nicholas-giampa-nazi-nick-breedlove-photo-buckley-fricker-scott/

https://www.restonnow.com/2017/12/27/new-details-surface-in-the-murder-of-reston-couple/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/a-swastika-was-mowed-into-a-field-now-neighbors-ask-if-they-could-have-done-more/2017/12/26/4e190a48-ea63-11e7-8a6a-80acf0774e64_story.html?utm_term=.6c90df31d20c


Lane Maurice Davis. Killed his father Charles Davis for calling him Nazi (he was)in Skagit County Washington.

Sources: https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2017/10/23/alt-righter-seattle4truth-charged-killing-father-over-conspiracy-theories

Foamy Latte (talk) 06:46, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Also, now confirmed case of alt-right terrorism:

Nikolas Cruz. Killed 17 students, wounded 14 at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland Florida. He had engraved swastikas in the ammunition magazines he had brought to the school. He also had a swastika and had written 'I hate niggers' on his backpack.

Sources: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/swastikas-ammunition-magazines-parkland-florida-school-shooting-suspect-nikolas-cruz/

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/florida-shooting-nikolas-cruz-swastikas-ammunition-magazines-parkland-massacre-a8232916.html

https://nypost.com/2018/02/27/accused-florida-shooter-allegedly-etched-swastikas-into-rifle-magazines/

http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-florida-shooter-psychology-20180226-htmlstory.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/parkland-shooter-swastikas_us_5a96a5c4e4b09c872bafe4af

Foamy Latte (talk) 02:19, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Who considers these incidents terrorism instead of "hate" crimes? Skingski (talk) 16:18, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

How are hate crimes different from terrorism, when they are politically motivated? Swastikas are a political symbol. Nazis are a political movement. Being pro Trump is a political stance. being a member of the alt-right is being part of a political movement. What are you not getting about these incidents?Foamy Latte (talk) 06:47, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Why is the "Reconstruction era" section in here? The "white terrorism" against African Americans during the Reconstruction era was carried out by Democrats. Skingski (talk) 16:14, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Different era when Southern Democrats were conservative and socialists such as Karl Marx and his followers in America supported the Republican Party. TFD (talk) 16:31, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful to explain which organizations / individuals are responsible for the right-wing terrorist attacks and which organizations have a continually active presence in their respective countries. Hannahgoss (talk) 16:28, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

terrorism or political violence

The articles about Left-Wing, Communist, Right-Wing and Islam, etc. are named "terrorism" while for Zionist "political violence" is used. All describe terrorist attacks as defined as in the Wikipedia article about terrorism ("Terrorism is, in the broadest sense, the use of intentionally indiscriminate violence as a means to create terror among masses of people; or fear to achieve a religious or political aim. , see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism). We either have to change all to terrorism or all to political violence, everything else would not be neutral.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_terrorism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_terrorism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_terrorism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_terrorism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionist_political_violence — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.225.226.214 (talk) 01:48, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I see your point. This overlaps slightly with a topic I'm about to post...Laterthanyouthink (talk) 09:46, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

New topic needed?

Not having a lot of time to extract and add useful things from How prevalent is far-right extremism? (BBC) right now, I was looking for the right page to park it on as "Further reading". I ended up on Right-wing terrorism, but it seems to me that there's a bit of a gap between actual terrorism and those extremist groups on the fringes, some verging on or committing acts of violence, random hate crimes, and suchlike: covert groups which foment hatred of certain others, some of which may confine themselves to inter-personal bragging or trolling social media, through those who try to go out of their way to get into conflicts with protesters or Antifa, to those who actually commit acts of violence (which may not qualify as terrorism because it's the odd random bashing or murder). I think we need something that isn't just Far-right politics but doesn't qualify as far-right terrorism. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 09:46, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

In order to create an article, you need to show that the topic exists in reliable sources. While there may be examples of right-wing violence that do not meet the threshold of terrorism, you need to show that someone has written about them as a general topic and not as part of a discussion on right-wing terrorism, the far right or hate crimes. News articles btw are poor sources for defining topics. They are much better for current developments. Note too that most sources group right-wing terrorism and violence together. TFD (talk) 16:39, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, The Four Deuces. I agree generally with what you say about news sources, but this one is one of the "Reality Check" series, which does bring together a number of statistics and provides an overview of far-right extremism in different countries. I seem to have been coming across more and more examinations of this kind of topic over the past year in British and Australian sources, and of course more in the wake of the Christchurch attack. There is an examination of how the fringe elements can contribute to the likelihood of full-on terrorist attacks, and in related news articles such as Right-winger's violent threats ignored as police find 'not enough evidence' (just one example of many), there's mention of the failures by some areas of law enforcement in dealing with right wing extremists. National Action (UK) and other neo-Nazi groups, people like Tommy Robinson in the UK; in Australia, United Patriots Front and related thugs, that kind of thing. I don't have the time (or will, really!) to do an in-depth investigation now - but thought I'd raise it for discussion anyway. (Categories help a bit, but most users look for articles first.) Laterthanyouthink (talk) 00:23, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
But what is your point? Articles about the far right should mention their propensity for violence and this article should be about far right violence. TFD (talk) 01:16, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
I guess it's the intersection between the RWNJs who shout, troll people viciously, organise protests or turn up at an opposing group's protest, and those who actually commit violent acts. Not really politics but not really terrorism. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 02:37, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
I've added a few sub-sections under the Causes heading, as a start on what I think isn't really covered. No doubt with more time and consideration it could be considerably improved and enlarged to include more on other countries. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:02, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Move US list out of this article?

The long list of incidents in the table under the US is making this article rather long, unwieldy, and US-centric. What about either moving it into its own article, or into a section within Domestic terrorism in the United States? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:02, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Mentioned in far right wing extremist web site

This article has been mentioned in an extremist web site: right wing extremist web site link. I don't see any legitimate complaints about the content of the extant article here which would warrant any corrections since every complaint in the article fails to mention anything that's actually inaccurate, however that extremist article may lead to an increase in attacks on the extant article here, so editor volunteers need to be vigilant for vandalism of this article. SoftwareThing (talk) 16:51, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

The National Post is not a far right website and the only mention of this article is when it is used as a source for the number of right-wing terrorist attacks in the U.S. (The comment that the source used by this article is "left-wing" though is misleading.) TFD (talk) 20:43, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Looking through the "National Post" web site in general starting from its home page, yes, it's far right wing which is why the article which references the extant article here is far right wing extremist. By the way, anybody can bring up a web site to check a fact. Thanks. SoftwareThing (talk) 13:44, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't know how you arrived at that conclusion, but it is a major mainstream newspaper in Canada, although it's editorial policy is right-wing similar to the Telegraph or the Wall Street Journal. TFD (talk) 03:17, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
It would be fair to call John Robson a right wing extremist but the National Post overall is not, they are center right and arguably just to the left of the WSJ. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 22:16, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Recentism, style

1. Many scary quotes remain, after my sample fixes.


2. Recent terror attacks are much too detailed: 

...livestreamed the shootings on Facebook Live after announcing them on 8chan /pol/ (a centre of neo-Nazi/far-right discussion). Brenton Harrison Tarrant also praised various other far-right mass murderers and killers such as Anders Behring Breivik ...

Let us prune these. Zezen (talk) 07:34, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Murder of blacks

Could someone please include these victims?

Source: ADL Heat Map

Extremist Murder 12/16/2005 Hamilton Township, NJ Right Wing (White Supremacist) Atlantic City Skinheads member Wilter Dille shot and killed an African-American woman as she as getting out of her car at a shopping center.


Extremist Murder 07/14/2007 Houston, TX Right Wing (White Supremacist) Aryan Circle member Dennis Clem shot and killed two African-American teens, and then fled with his girlfriend, Tanya Smith, to Bastrop, Louisiana.


Extremist Murder 12/8/2012 Sacramento, CA Right Wing (White Supremacist) Brian Keith Jones, Jr.,, a member of the Sacramaniacs, was convicted in December 2012 for shooting an African-American man due to a parking lot altercation.


Extremist Murder 12/16/2014 Tacoma, WA Right Wing (White Supremacist) White supremacist James Wall is believed to have killed a black man during a drug deal. He later killed himself after a confrontation with law enforcement.


Extremist Murder 6/12/2014 Carlisle, IN Right Wing (White Supremacist) White supremacist Anthony W. Reid stabbed and killed a fellow inmate, who was black. He responded to questions with racial slurs, and may have been responsible for an attack on a second black inmate.


Extremist Murder 8/22/2015 Binghamton, NY Right Wing (White Supremacist) White supremacists Ariana Edwards, 38, and Bradley Miles, 31, murdered a black man in his apartment.


Extremist Murder 8/21/2016 Fort Wayne, IN Right Wing (White Supremacist) White supremacist Aaryn Snider, 31, confessed to the murder of a black man while serving time for failing to register as a sex offender.

Extremist Murder 8/10/2016 Gresham, OR Right Wing (White Supremacist) Russell Courtier, a member of the white supremacist group European Kindred, ran over and killed an African American man after they got into an argument.


Extremist Murder 6/19/2017 Century Correctional Institution, FL Right Wing (White Supremacist) Florida prison inmate Robert Hunt, 26, murdered an African-American fellow inmate. In a wrongful death suit, his murder victim's family claimed Hunt had a reputation as a white supremacist.

Extremist Murder 3/17/2018 Murfreesboro, TN Right Wing (White Supremacist) John Daniel Carothers, a resident of a Veteran Affairs assisted living home and a white supremacist, allegedly killed his African-American roommate by setting him on fire. He has been charged with first degree murder, aggravated arson and eight counts of reckless endangerment.

Extremist Murder 8/19/2018 Pittsburgh, PA Right Wing (White Supremacist) White supremacist Joden Rocco, 24, was charged with homicide after allegedly fatally stabbing an African-American man walking down the sidewalk outside a bar. Rocco had earlier posted a video in which he allegedly claimed that he and others were going to go to bars to see how many times they could say the n-word before being kicked out.

Extremist Murder 7/2/2018 Shawnee, KS Right Wing (White Supremacist) White supremacist Ronald Lee Tidwell was arrested for the stabbing murder of an African-American woman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.112.133.20 (talk) 09:48, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

It is not terrorism, as defined by the lead. Zezen (talk) 07:38, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 23 February 2020

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: Not moved (non-admin closure) BegbertBiggs (talk) 12:54, 1 March 2020 (UTC)


Right-wing terrorism → Far right terrorism – More common name. Unreal7 (talk) 23:29, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Conclusion: The most common name is "Right-ring terrorism"-SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:49, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't see any basis for the claim and as a major contributor I have looked at a lot of secondary sources about the subject. TFD (talk) 02:41, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per both above. EllenCT (talk) 02:47, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment – I am not sure how the change would benefit the article. There are arguments such as the current title being simple, common, or unambiguous. Then again, politically motivated terrorism by its very nature is extremist or hyperpartisan, so it is reasonable to believe that right-wing terrorism is essentially far-right. For that reason, I do not see how this proposed move will go anywhere. GaɱingFørFuɲ365 06:03, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This move would make the title misleading in scope, as the article covers more than far-right terrorism. Glades12 (talk) 18:01, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

1870s start in US, 1970s start in Europe

It seems a little strange to start the history in the US with the KKK in the 1870s, but not to cover Europe until the 1970s with Neo-Nazis. There were a number of far-right groups in pre-WWII Europe that used terrorist tactics, including the Nazis themselves before they came into power. And in a number of countries far-right groups using terrorist tactics go back as far as the 19th century, including the Black Hundreds in the Russian Empire.--Pharos (talk) 18:15, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

The article actually talks about the 3rd KKK which developed after WW2 and began a terrorist campaign in the 1960s. Terrorism studies is fairly recent and focuses on terrorism beginning in the 1960s. It's often difficult to apply modern concepts to a period before the terms were invented and there may be academic disagreement on what meets the criteria. But whatever their reasons, we include groups that are typically included in textbook articles about right-wing terrorism, rather than groups we think should be included. TFD (talk) 20:50, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
The introduction says Modern right-wing terrorism first emerged in North America during the Reconstruction era (1863–1877) and it later emerged in Western and Central Europe in the 1970s, and following the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, it emerged in Eastern Europe. This is of course a reference to the first KKK, which indeed has been increasingly cited as fitting very well the modern definition of a terrorist group.--Pharos (talk) 13:33, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
The source used says, "The modern right-wing variant of political terrorism is mainly a European phenomenon that appeared in Western Europe beginning in the 1980s and in Eastern European countries inthe late 1980s and 1990s, following the collapse of the former Soviet Union."[10] I have edited the introduction to reflect the source.[11] See if you think it now does.
Having taken time to reflect, I don't think that earlier KKK violence was categorized as right-wing but as ethnic/nationalist terrorism. In other words, the objective of their violence was limited to excluding blacks and other minorities from civil society.
TFD (talk) 17:51, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
That might be a good solution for the introduction, but maybe if "Right-wing terrorism" is being defined solely as a post-WWII phenomenon, we should also have some sort of section on ideological precursors?--Pharos (talk) 19:21, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Sub section for Islamic terrorism

Islamic terrorism, like any other religious based terrorism, is right-wing terrorism. Saying otherwise is factually false. AHC300 (talk) 10:14, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

What happens when left-leaning political movements advocate religious-based terrorism? Would that not make this assumption false? 12.227.66.34 (talk) 18:27, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Kenosha shooting right wing terrorist?

I don't think so — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.219.44.60 (talk) 08:30, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Well, the source cited (in New America's Terrorism In America After 9/11) disagrees with you, because they include it in its dataset. Your personal opinion is, of course, immaterial. We have used the New America dataset for years as the source for the list. Neutralitytalk 02:54, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

My opinion? Your source material is wrong bucko — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.219.44.60 (talk) 08:08, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I question whether New America (organization) is an authoritative source for determining what was a terrorist attack. They don't explain their criteria for inclusion and the list was collated by journalists, rather than terrorism experts. Even if it were, experts may disagree. Classifying terrorism by motivation is difficult with lone actors. Group motivation is much easier to identify. For example, we know what the motivations of al Qaeda are, but it's more difficult to identify those of the Fort Hood shooter, who may have been motivated out of personal revenge. Some experts treat lone wolf terrorism as a separate type of terrorism.
Also, People accused of crime says that we should not accuse people of crimes before they are convicted. In this case the accused says he acted in self-defense.
Finally, since New America lists 114 right-wing terrorist attacks in the U.S. since 9/11, I don't see the point of listing all of them, particularly considering that this article is about right-wing terrorism globally and including the period before 9/11. It's more useful to describe the characteristics of right-wing terrorism and provide some of the more infamous examples than to provide a list of incidents.
TFD (talk) 17:21, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
TFD, Peter Bergen — who is the lead compiler of the New America list — is both a journalist and a "terrorism expert." He has written many books about terrorism and has held numerous academic appointments in national security and related areas. I think his expertise in this area is well-established. As for disagreement among experts about particular cases — sure, that can happen, but it's way better to have a single list from an easily identifiable database, rather than a hodgepodge of articles from varying sources. I also would say that "we" are not accusing people of any crimes; the text of the article is very explicit that this is "New America's tally." Neutralitytalk 20:45, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
His website lists an undergraduate degree in modern history. It does not mention any books or articles written for academic publications and the academic appointments appear to be as a professor of practice or a researcher at a think tank. All his terrorism writing has been about Islamic terrorism.
In any case, I see no reason why this specific source should be used. Is it routinely relied upon in academic writing for its categorizations?
There are a number of think tanks that collate terrorist attacks. I think we should bear in mind that their purpose is to explain the extent of the problem, to record changes in activity and to compare the relative activity of different types of terrorism. They also vary in how quickly they add incidents. The Global Terrorism Database for example only goes up to 2019. I don't think that they are intended to have the degree of accuracy we require. It makes sense that they would include events that are probable terrorist attacks. The best way to report their information is probably the way it is done in Killings of Aaron Danielson and Michael Reinoehl:
"In October 2020, Danielson's killing was added to the CSIS terrorism database as a deadly "far-left" attack, the first such incident in over two decades. The killing is also referenced on the Anti-Defamation League's page on antifa, as the only "suspected antifa-related murder" to date; and the New America Foundation's tally of killings during terrorist attacks in the U.S. since 9/11, as the first recorded fatality in a far-left attack."
TFD (talk) 01:24, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

"Right-wing violence" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Right-wing violence. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 22#Right-wing violence until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 01:44, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

List of right-wing terrorist attacks

I suppose this article might support a conception of list of the above, although its scope is vaguely defined and unverifiable, so I'm noting the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of right-wing terrorist attacks. ~ cygnis insignis 12:38, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Finland section copy paste text

Sorry @DePiep:, I made a small error in my edit summary. The exact same copy paste text in #Right-wing terrorism#Finland is also found in the article Far-right politics in Finland. It seems suboptimal to clutter this article with 9,000 bytes of copypaste text going into much detail about one country. WP:SIZESPLIT. If someone wants to read about Finnish right-wing terrorism in detail, then the main article would be far-right politics in Finland which indeed is linked in the section here. --Sankari (talk) 07:36, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Better not revert for misunderstanding

@Sankari: Inappropriate revert. Do not editwar. If you have a question, don't ask in the editsummary.

What I said was: no problem two texts appear in two articles. No reason to remove. What counts is that the aricle is encyclopedical, like complete & readible. If you cut out large parts, the consistency of the article is broken. And again, duplicate is not forbidden anyway. Now if you think the articles overlap, you can propose an article merge. So please revert your removal. -DePiep (talk) 07:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Fine, have 10,000 bytes of copypaste text in as many articles as you want. Quality encyclopedia. --Sankari (talk) 07:40, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
You still have not even started to explain why or how this text does not belong in this article. -DePiep (talk) 07:53, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Multiple articles contain some of the same text, nothing wrong with it. If you want to anal about it, right-wing terrorism article would have nothing but links to national subarticles.RKT7789 (talk) 14:41, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Right-wing_terrorism/Archive_2&oldid=1149412820"