The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Not a satisfying conclusion for anyone, I might imagine, but a consensus has not formed, and I do not have confidence that any further relisting would lead to one. While there have been substantial concerns raised whether this list can be appropriately scoped, there is not enough support to form a consensus for outright deletion. I would very much encourage the participants here to discuss ways to address the concerns many editors raised during the discussion. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:25, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Islamist terrorist attacks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a POV fork of List of terrorist incidents and a mess of WP:OR. Many of the citations used don't refer to the person/s carrying out any of the attacks as being Islamic. Any content that isn't irredeemably biased or original research belongs in List of terrorist incidents along with all other terrorist incidents. This page should be deleted and set to redirect to List of terrorist incidents. AlanS^talk 09:34, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, Terrorism, and Religion. AlanS^talk 09:34, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:52, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note that List of right-wing terrorist attacks also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion.

Note that List of left-wing terrorist attacks also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion.

Note that List of thwarted Islamic terrorist attacks also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion.

• Delete/Redirect per nom and also WP:OR. It's a narrow scope that promotes the idea that a religion is a notable topic from the main list. Conyo14 (talk) 05:54, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: If there are problems with original research or accidental inclusions of unrelated events, then that should mean the article ought to be fixed, not that the page as a whole should be deleted. --Dynamo128 (talk) 09:45, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect: Agree. Just a casual sampling of the entries here immediately shows the WP:OR disaster at work. The first entry is on some communal riots that are far removed from the sense of "Islamist terror attack"; the next two are by the Black September Organisation, which was a nationalist, not Islamist group. That's a huge WP:V fail just three entries in. And yes, any historical attacks that are indeed notable enough will appear on the main list of terror incidents; indeed, I'm sure that actually Islamist examples are already more than amply represented there, such that this list provides no additional value. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:03, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Redirect. The term "Islamist terrorism" is really problematic, because it suggests a direct connection between a religion and terrorism. Islam as a whole rejects terrorism, as do all major religions. Just as it would be anti-Semitic to refer to an incident of Israeli settler violence against Palestinians as "Jewish terrorism," it's Islamophobic to refer to terrorism by a Palestinian or Saudi as "Islamist terrorism". NightHeron (talk) 10:08, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you've confused Islamist with Islamic. It would be more analogous to say Zionist terrorism rather than Jewish terrorism. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:28, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am aware that there's a distinction -- a Distinction without a difference. I very much doubt that the average Wikipedia reader knows any difference in meaning between the two words. Nor does the average editor. My evidence for the latter conjecture is that the article List of thwarted Islamic terrorist attacks (article was recently deleted) with the word Islamic, not Islamist, has been was on Wikipedia for 7 1/2 years. NightHeron (talk) 22:14, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect: See Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks where I agreed with concerns that the Munich massacre was motivated more by nationalist extremism than religion. It isn't in doubt that some people have done crazy or wicked things and believed that religion justified it, but some of the entries here are a poorly sourced hotchpotch.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:47, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  More than some by my assessment. It seems there are a lot of entries where there is a presumption about a person's religion based on their nationality and therefore their motives. AlanS^talk 11:04, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: While 9/11 is clearly Islamic extremism, I have to agree that there is serious confusion and uncertainty over what is really a right-wing, left-wing or Islamist terrorist attack, resulting in a lot of WP:OR, and in the case of the first two aforementioned articles, tit-for-tat POV-pushing. While I cannot take a position due to me not being an expert in terrorism, I observed a lot of confusion in the right-wing list, resulting in multiple additions and removals of selected incidents believed to have a motive widely (and understandably in the current context) associated (but not always) with right-wing extremism, such as anti-Semitism. --Minoa (talk) 11:46, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: As Dynamo128 typed above, "If there are problems with original research or accidental inclusions of unrelated events, then that should mean the article ought to be fixed, not that the page as a whole should be deleted."-1Firang (talk) 01:23, 31 July 2023 (UTC) Blocked editor. AlanS^talk 06:18, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Your talk page shows that you've recently had a topic ban for India and Pakistan related topics. Additionally that you've been in disputes with other editors regarding Rape in Afghanistan, Stoning in Islam, Rape in Islamic law and History of slavery in the Muslim world. AlanS^talk 02:19, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It may be worth noting that a sub-list exists at Islamic terrorism in Europe#List of attacks. TompaDompa (talk) 07:57, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Rename it List of terrorists attacks by Islamic extremists. We have an article for Islamic extremism. Dream Focus 09:34, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: This might work for attacks by groups like al-Qaeda and Islamic State, but the article has become a hotchpotch of attacks that were not motivated directly by Islamic extremism.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:26, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The issues with original research or accidental inclusions of unrelated events, can be fixed in normal editing.The article passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:38, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Pharaoh of the Wizards: This is a list article, so the appropriate guideline is WP:NLIST. You would need to provide evidence that at least some of the list entries have been discussed as a group and under a similar name ("Islamist terrorist attacks") by multiple reliable sources. — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:55, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• This clearly passes WP:LISTN and clearly there is sourcing in multiple reliable sources that attacks by the Islamic State, Boko Haram, the Taliban, and al-Qaeda is Islamist terrorism.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or WP:TNT. IMO the concept is notable enough for a list but there is a lot of original research going on here and the content is, dubious, to say the least. With better standards it could be a page. Disagree with the above saying "Islamist terrorism" is an inherently problematic term, though PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:33, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep or WP:TNT. Changed my mind, topic is too useful to delete. Needs much better page standards and a cleanup, though.PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:50, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The other terrorist attack lists are tenuous, but "Islamist terrorism" is a specific category that's widely recognized and used by reliable sources. Lists like this are good to have, because they provide an alternative to newscrufty articles about non-notable attacks that don't have long term sociopolitical effects. If the list needs cleanup or better sourcing, then AfD is not the correct venue. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:24, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Redirect: It is quite contentious to place a group of people into a category of extreme as this. It would be more appropriate to include extremist in the title, but this is also an apparent fork full of WP:OR. Conyo14 (talk) 21:42, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize I voted twice here. Conyo14 (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The topic is notable and encyclopedic. However, strongly enforce WP:DUE on the page; as I have raised previously we have an issue with items being included in lists without meeting core policies of WP:OR or WP:NPOV. Correcting that broadly is a difficult task, but hopefully we can correct it here. BilledMammal (talk) 01:01, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep topic is notable and meets WP:GNG.115.96.0.250 (talk) 08:14, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:ITSNOTABLE, lol — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:36, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per my comment at the "left-wing terrorism" AfD — this is more clearly-defined and less-obvious POV or OR. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 16:34, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep per Dunamo. 208.87.236.201 (talk) 18:36, 2 August 2023 (UTC) Blocked IP. TarnishedPath^talk 16:40, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There are a couple of IPs above. One has only ever edited in this AfD and the Sandbox. The other IP has been blocked in the past as it was determined to be an open proxy. AlanS^talk 00:02, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as the topic is notable on all levels and pertains to a highly noteworthy feature of security threats to millions of people around the world. Many of the assertions made in favour of deletion are specious including one commentator stating that the term used for the title is problematic (when it is supported by very many books and publications over the last few decades) and another concluding inaccurately that the first three entries are representative of the remaining 100+ in the list.--Scootertop (talk) 14:00, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete such a list is indiscriminate. Most of the coverage focuses on Islamic terrorist attacks on western targets, but the vast majority of targets by Islamic terrorism is against other Muslim/Middle eastern targets, due to geographic and security considerations. Would such a Wikipedia ever convey that weight is dubious because of the WP:OR research concerns. I am persuaded by similar arguments at Left/right wing terrorist AfD discussions. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 19:50, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as a list with poorly defined scope. The boundaries between Islamic religious terrorism and terrorism committed by Muslims and violence committed in the name of Islam that isn't necessarily terrorism are extremely blurry. There are plentiful sources about each of those topics, and our page on Islamic terrorism can explore that nuance, but the material is very poorly suited to a list. The AfDs for left- and right-wing terrorism are an entirely different case; those were ostensibly about phenomena, not lists of incidents, and we do have a comparably article on the phenomenon. A lot of the "keep" votes above are applying arguments from different topics that are not sufficient to justify this list specifically. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:49, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I can't follow any logic in your argument. The sources used in the list aren't "blurry". We don't delete articles on WP because they need improvement and you haven't made any recommendations. 212.26.68.44 (talk) 04:43, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It means that most terrorism is perpetrated based on complex blends of motives that often don't readily lend themselves to sloppy editorial pigeonholing and broad-brush generalization. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:49, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Islamist terrorism is a notable topic with many incidents to list. It is certainly more clearly defined in scope than, say, List of foiled right-wing terrorist attacks. --Local hero ^talk 02:29, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Local hero, interesting that you mention that list. Someone else mentioned in another AfD that it should be examined for the same concerns which have so far led to three other lists similar to this one being voted to be deleted. AlanS^talk 05:47, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  So go vote on that too, and judge by individual merit here, per WP:WAX. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:42, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Local hero:, you're quite right that Islamic terrorism is a notable topic, and there are incidents that are unquestionably Islamic terrorism that we can and do mention there. This, however, isn't that article; this is a list of events that supposedly constituted Islamic terrorism, and it isn't a list we can ever have clear inclusion criteria for. I note that the other list you mention was deleted, for similar reasons. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:46, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:06, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete/ Redirect: At a bare minimum, this article needs WP:TNT. It has gone off the rails by including incidents that were not clearly motivated by religious extremism.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:07, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @Ianmacm, you've voted in this twice. Probably easy to do when it's been relisted. AlanS^talk 13:36, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I didn't intend to !vote twice, but my basic views on this are still the same.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:38, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I presumed you didn't mean it. I'd suggest you strike one of your votes. AlanS^talk 13:44, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment as I voted above. There are a lot of entries and the vast majority, including all the recent ones are fully sourced in line with WP guidelines. The article would benefit from inspection of some entries or perhaps removal of some of the earliest entries on the list.--Scootertop (talk) 13:05, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Scootertop, you've voted in this twice. Probably easy to do when it's been re-listed. AlanS^talk 13:35, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Ps, when I went through the article I saw a many entries where it seemed there was a presumption (based on the sources) about people's religion based on their nationality because in a lot of sources Islam or that they were Muslim was not mentioned. At the very least this need WP:TNT. AlanS^talk 13:42, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I think this particular AFD has been messy due to the different !votes. There is at least some consensus for WP:TNT, but wow is this AFD getting confusing. Conyo14 (talk) 05:13, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Apologies; I've changed my statement from a vote to a comment if that's okay.--Scootertop (talk) 10:26, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  All good. TarnishedPath^talk 09:49, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed on all counts. AlanS^talk 06:34, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and remove any and all questionable entries per Dynamo128 and Scootertop. The topic is notable, and there is enough here worth saving. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 08:52, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep clearly notable topic has WP:SIGCOV coverage.Tigerrises (talk) 14:41, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This topic is notable. BadhonCR (talk) 08:46, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Why don't you read WP:ITSNOTABLE? — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:36, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is a very contentious topic. Consensus appears to be leaning KEEP at the moment. Relisting to try and generate more solid consensus and discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   ArcAngel   (talk) 02:45, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Seems a bit unwieldy when the first sentence says there have been 48 000 attacks between 1979 and now (when it was written). Are we really going to a 40-thousand something item list? This should be broken down into countries or continents or something. As it is, it appears to cherry-pick some attacks while ignoring most of the other ones that are out there. Oaktree b (talk) 15:54, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Completely agree with the nom - this has WP:OR and WP:NPOV issues - Vanamonde has made the argument better than I can, but even if this passes WP:GNG (just because they're all sourced?) WP:NOT can still exclude a notable topic. SportingFlyer T·C 12:05, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't see any issue with notability. If there are issues with the content then that should be resolved on talk page. ScriptKKiddie (talk) 10:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment clearly notable topic passes WP:GNG and WP:LISTN issues with the content including inclusion criteria can be discussed in Talk. Every list has issues with inclusion criteria.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:10, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Every list may have issues with inclusion criteria, but most lists don't have the fatal flaws this one has. Groupthink (talk) 09:49, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed. This is a mess of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH that is consequence of an ill-defined set. TarnishedPath^talk 11:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/redirect Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Selection criteria states: "Selection criteria (also known as inclusion criteria or membership criteria) should be unambiguous [and] objective..." The loaded term "Islamist" fails on both counts, as the opening paragraph of its article clearly illustrates: "There is no consensus definition of Islamism, which has many varieties and alternative names, and some have objected to use of the term, either for its being derogatory, or so broad and flexible as to have lost its meaning." Groupthink (talk) 07:49, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/redirect I see no reason for this article to be maintained. In principle, I question the encyclopedic value of making lists of terrorist attack by religious affiliation. In practice, making such a list is an endeavor that invites OR. And in reality, as it stands currently, the article is an unmitigated disaster. So I don't support re-writing or rehabilitating it. The best way forward is to delete the article/redirect it to list of terrorist attacks. Pecopteris (talk) 08:54, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Arguments in favor of keeping this list based on notability are all irrelevant straw man assertions and should be disregarded. The issues at hand are OR, synth, and NPOV. Groupthink (talk) 09:36, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I have concerns with a number of editors that have extremely short editing histories, who have voted to keep using extremely short justifications along the lines of 'article passes WP:GNG' or 'article has WP:SIGCOV coverage'. TarnishedPath^talk 11:00, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/redirect. Motives behind many attacks are notoriously hard to ascertain. The motives of the actual perpetrator and of the terrorist outfit that will have commissioned the act are often complex and may differ (e.g., ideology; revenge; competition; financial gain; mental disorder; etc,). While some media are often very quick to offer simple explanations, an encyclopaedia should require a higher bar than what such a short list is able to offer in this article. Hence my !vote: delete/redirect due to sourcing and SYNTH problems. — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:59, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/redirect Pinning down inclusion criteria for this and similar lists is always going to be difficult and result in misclassifications and OR.Selfstudier (talk) 11:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep meets WP:SIGCOV almost nil synthesis in the article and clearly sourced in Reliable sources hence not OR.115.97.235.163 (talk) 11:51, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the above IP has already appears to have voted already as IP 115.96.0.250. Refer to IP lookups from here and here demonstrating both IPs geolocate to Chennai in India and both are owned by the ISP Hathway Cable and Datacom Limited. TarnishedPath^talk 12:14, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Can we possibly do a checkuser on some of the IPs and the keep !votes that give parroted reasoning? Conyo14 (talk) 22:56, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. We have Islamic terrorism article, so the bias, frankly, I see more on the part of those who want to remove the list under discussion, than their opponents. Suitskvarts (talk) 14:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The motivation for removal is more based on the WP:OR it entails. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:38, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • And the list needs to be improved, not erased. Suitskvarts (talk) 15:13, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    That is impossible due to the the flaws in its premise, and any efforts to do so would be polishing a turd. Groupthink (talk) 15:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/redirect The list is a mess. Identification of a given attack as being relevant to this list is also problematic. ++Lar: t/c 14:50, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep content issues are not a reason for deletion. Islamic terrorism is, for better or worse, the category of terrorism most people think of when you say the word and the most well-known and widely-discussed motivation for terrorism. The vast majority of the attacks that fall under the list's scope can be very easily categorized (who wants to bet that IS and al-Qaeda motivations aren't radical Islamism?), and the edge cases like Black September's attack can be dealt with via normal content editing. AryKun (talk) 14:03, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep' I can't find any argument that would make me want to delete this. scope_creep^Talk 17:11, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.