Talk:Right-wing terrorism

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• McVeighGXMugshot.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:24, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

"White nationalist terrorism" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect White nationalist terrorism has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 22 § White nationalist terrorism until a consensus is reached. JayCubby 02:28, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Misrepresnted source

The article claims that:

Cumulatively over five decades, right-wing perpetrators in the US killed substantially more people than left-wing or Islamist-inspired perpetrators.

and likewise the description of the graph is:

Cumulative presentation of politically motivated terrorism since 1975

But the source says, instead, that:

The same study looked at data as far back as 1975 and found that terrorists inspired by Islamist ideology account for some 87% of all deaths (3122) from political violence, due to the mass casualties of the 9/11 attacks.

Excluding the 9/11 attacks, over the same period, terrorists inspired by right-wing ideology are responsible for 63% of deaths from political violence during that time, compared to 10% for left-wing attacks.

The exclusion of the 9/11 victims from the data should be made clear. ~2025-40490-60 (talk) 11:13, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

The bottom of the chart already states "Excludes deaths in Sept. 11 attacks". I presume the source excluded the September 11 data because that single day would have skewed/minimized the left-versus-right-wing data. —RCraig09 (talk) 18:13, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

I've added a phrase to the narrative text explaining that the 9/11 data is excluded. —RCraig09 (talk) 18:17, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Mass content removal

Hi!

I see there have been extensive removals of unsourced content, which I understand and support per WP:V.

However, there have also been edit summaries which include politicised accusations that violate WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Wikipedia not a political battleground.

Please if you have any content specific feedback, please outline them here and we may discuss constructively.

Thank you! Pksois23 (talk) 21:56, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

User:Ad Orientem and User:EvergreenFir don't agree with "I see there have been extensive removals of unsourced content, which I understand and support per WP:V.", they're the owners of this article, as both are against WP:V (but they don't care). — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-34709-3 (talk) 18:43, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Terrorism definition

An editor added the following, which I and another editor have removed: "There is neither an academic nor an international legal consensus regarding the proper definition of the word terrorism."

The explanation was, "Added to match the article for left-wing terrorism. If we are to have a line that contextualises and potentially discredits the usage of the term 'terrorism', it should be added to both articles. If not, then, to remove any bias, someone more familiar with the editing process may be so kind as to edit both articles accordingly."

I notice the same editor removed the same text from Left-wing terrorism with the comment, "Unreliable source; and this is a justification (far-left terrorism (e.g. ISIS) exists and is a big problem." These two articles are entirely separate and you cannot base the content in one on the content in another.

The first reason I removed the text from this article is weight. You would have to show that the definition of terrorism was an issue in the literature about right-wing terrorism. Second, you need to use a source about right-wing terrorism, not terrorism in general.

Right-wing terrorism is not right-wing plus terrorism, but is a specific concept that is not required to meet general definitions for right wing or terrorism. TFD (talk) 20:29, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Useful source

I found a source which could be useful for expanding the India subsection of this article.

It's available through the Wikipedia Library. — EarthDude (Talk) 09:50, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

@Doug Weller Pinging an editor who might be interested — EarthDude (Talk) 10:01, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

I’m very sorry, but I just don’t have the energy. Parkinson’s limits my ability to walk to keep my strength up and I’m in the last stages of dying from cancer. Doug Weller talk 10:27, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

@Doug Weller I am very sorry to hear that. I know we haven't interacted much, but I've seen your work and respect it quite a lot. I hope you enjoy your time with your loved ones. Best wishes and lots of wikilove. — EarthDude (Talk) 10:45, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Luckily I've got a lot of support. Doug Weller talk 11:00, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Definition dispute

For the start of the conversation, see User talk:PARAKANYAA § Reply 6 April 2026.

I think this discussion will be more productive here. Late Night Coffee (talk) 03:51, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Our dispute is entirely contextualized to a template, so I'm not sure what use this is here. In text, opinions and debates can be discussed and attributed; not so in templates, hence the reason I objected to the template!

But yes, this page's absence of radical Islam as "right-wing terror" while including Christian terror is very strange, especially since in the lead it includes religiously motivated terrorism as right-wing. But only Christianity for some reason? When a political angle is applied to radical Islamism it is considered far-right. Presumably this is because, like all counterterrorism terms it is an artificial construct with nonsensical boundaries (viewing Islamic terror as a unqiue threat separate from the left-right axis is ultimately a construct) - which further strengthens the concern with arbitrarily deciding yourself what does and does not go in the template on our own, which is OR! PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:13, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Exclamation points are unnecessarily melodramatic! DN (talk) 04:21, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm not exaggerating my point I am emphasizing it. OR is a serious issue worth emphasizing. But in discussions with you I shall do my best to cease exclamation. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:25, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting original research. You need to find an example of a "liberal terrorist attack" that actually exists because we would need to see what sources say about that specific event. Unless there's a real example, there's nothing to talk about. Late Night Coffee (talk) 05:10, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Filling a template by events that seem to you to fit a category, without RS that describe it as fitting the category, is OR. Unless an RS contains that characterization, you cannot include it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:34, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

If it is in regards to an edit not made on this article, then it probably doesn't belong here. Cheers. DN (talk) 04:14, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

@DN, it's about the topic of right-wing terrorism on Wikipedia, the main page for the topic seemed like the right place. Is there a better place? It relates to categories, templates, and multiple related articles ... It seemed to belong everywhere and nowhere? Late Night Coffee (talk) 05:08, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

@DN, if I got it wrong, then I don't mind if you collapse, archive, or move the thread. Late Night Coffee (talk) 05:15, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

No worries, I don't see any harm in searching for the right forum. Pobody's nerfect. Cheers. DN (talk) 01:41, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

We were talking about the template {{Right-wing terrorism}}, below, but I'm restarted the conversation here for the general topic of how to define right-wing terrorism. Late Night Coffee (talk) 05:05, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Here's the relevant parts of the conversation that were less focused on the template. I don't know if there's a standard way I should format this? I've just used {{tqb}}. Late Night Coffee (talk) 05:05, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

{{RWT}}

But if the problem is people and groups, why did you react so negatively to the template that only has events and broad ideologies? Late Night Coffee (talk) 01:42, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

@LateNightCoffee My gripe with the template is due to a variety of factors. for extremely broad topic of "right-wing terrorism" is, while acceptable to label incidents in their own articles, where it can be explained and qualified, it is poorly suited to a navbox, which 1) have no explanataion or qualification 2) supposed to be closely related and replace see also sections. The entire category of right-wing terrorism is not closely related. That's most terrorist attacks.

Also, many of the incidents were not called "right-wing terrorism", you were extrapolating your own definition of right-wing - for example, why wouldn't it include Islamist acts of terror? Radical Islam is generally considered right wing. It's not like it's excluding religion, you were putting Christian attacks in there... PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:53, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Late Night Coffee (talk) 05:05, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

I included four attacks by Ulster unionists because I found them in the right-wing terrorism tree. Possibly they should not have been there? If there's a reason to remove them, they can be removed. I can't find anything else that could be "Christian attacks"? Late Night Coffee (talk) 07:59, 8 April 2026 (UTC) ...I included anti-abortion violence in the topics, but no attacks. Is that what you mean? Late Night Coffee (talk) 08:02, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Late Night Coffee (talk) 05:05, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Stockton schoolyard shooting looks like a white supremacist terror attack, but possibly needs better sources to include. You can remove it till I find some.

The other two possibly don't belong. If you don't think they should be there, just remove them. The point of a Wiki is that we can work collaboratively and improve each other's work.

I included Legionnaires' rebellion and Bucharest pogrom because it includes a non-state militant group. I found Battle of Bab El Oued in the categories but that is the same.

That's the way battles including 21st-century non-state armed groups are treated, e.g. List of Islamist terrorist attacks includes 2014 Grozny clashes. This is not uncommon. This is the typical usage on hundreds of Wikipedia pages. Late Night Coffee (talk) 01:50, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Do you object to including Centennial Olympic Park bombing, or were you just giving it as an example of a Christian attacker? Late Night Coffee (talk) 00:58, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

I had a closer look at that page, and the attacker, Eric Rudolph, it belongs in the right-wing terrorism topic. It's included in this overview of right-wing terrorism from the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.

Quotes from before I made any changes:

Bombing: Centennial Olympic Park bombing

The Centennial Olympic Park bombing was a pipe bombing attack on Centennial Olympic Park in Atlanta, Georgia, United States, on July 27, 1996, during the Summer Olympics. The blast directly killed one person and injured 111 others; another person later died of a heart attack. It was the first of four bombings committed by Eric Rudolph in a domestic terrorist campaign against the U.S. government which he accused of championing "the ideals of global socialism" and "abortion on demand".

Bomber Eric Rudolph:

Eric Robert Rudolph (born September 19, 1966), also known as the Olympic Park Bomber, is an American domestic terrorist convicted of a series of bombings across the Southern United States between 1996 and 1998, which killed two people and injured over 100 others, including the Centennial Olympic Park bombing at the 1996 Summer Olympics in Atlanta. His stated motive was opposition to "the ideals of global socialism" and "abortion on demand", both of which he claimed were condoned by the United States government.

Eric Rudolph § Motivations:

After Rudolph's arrest for the bombings, The Washington Post reported that the FBI considered Rudolph to have "had a long association with the Christian Identity movement, which asserts that Northern European whites are the direct descendants of the lost tribes of Israel, God's chosen people." Christian Identity is a white supremacist movement which holds the view that those who are not white Christians cannot be saved.

He's delusional for thinking the US or a "global" conspiracy support socialism, but opposition to socialism is an unambiguously right-wing position. Christian Identity is not just "Christian" it's a fringe movement associated with the far-right, read the page. But this isn't just my assessment, the Centennial Olympic Park bombing is included in that overview of right-wing terrorism I showed above. Late Night Coffee (talk) 00:58, 10 April 2026 (UTC) Late Night Coffee (talk) 00:58, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

If the article does not support it and you have to click to another article to see why something is in the navbox, it should not be in the navbox. It doesn't matter whether it is or isn't, it matters what the article currently says, or it is unsourced. Unless the article currently describes it as that thing, it should not be in categories, navigation, etc, whether related articles do or not!

And yes, plenty of Islamist attackers believe similar things - what I am trying to illustrate to you is, why are we putting extremist Christians in this navbox, when we are not putting extremist Muslims in the navbox? Are you arguing that Islamist terrorism is not "right wing"? If so, why is Christian terrorism? Note that none of the descriptors you highlight say "right-wing"; and no, opposition to socialism is not an unambiguously right-wing position. You cannot extrapolate from the motive yourself to form your own classifications, this is WP:OR. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:27, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

@PARAKANYAA, The quotes above, before I added anything, already call it a domestic terror attack, and described an unambiguously right wing ideology. Late Night Coffee (talk) 01:56, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

It does not at any point say "right-wing". To describe it as "right-wing" you must have a source in the article that calls it "right-wing". Extrapolating from anything else is OR. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:00, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

This source, I showed you twice already.

• Blair, Charles P. (9 June 2014). "Looking clearly at right-wing terrorism". thebulletin.org. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Archived from the original on 2019-07-23.

It's listed in that. Late Night Coffee (talk) 02:09, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

The military and the far right. Throughout the history of US far-right extremism, many of its most influential and infamous members have had ties to the military.... Army of God adherent and Centennial Olympic Park and abortion clinic bomber Eric Rudolf was an Army veteran.

You need to read a few paragraphs of context, but it's there. Late Night Coffee (talk) 02:16, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

That's a quote from the source above. There will probably be others, that's just what I found first. Late Night Coffee (talk) 02:17, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Quote from a CNN news report.

...a far right-wing extremist and anti-abortion, anti-gay terrorist named Eric Rudolph was identified as the real culprit in the Centennial Park bombing.

Late Night Coffee (talk) 02:22, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

@PARAKANYAA: Here's a source from The New Yorker calling him far-right. Late Night Coffee (talk) 02:42, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

It's just knowing what words mean. Socialism is left-wing, opposing it is right-wing. They're relative terms.

Also, I added a source that describes it in the exact words "right-wing terrorism".

"...you have to click to another article to see why something is in the navbox..."

It being right-wing terrorism was already on the page. I suggested you read the Christian Identity page because of your side track about him being Christian. Late Night Coffee (talk) 02:05, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Not how this works. Is an anarchist who opposes socialism right-wing? Is a liberal? You cannot extrapolate these things to say statements that are not in the sources. Why not put all Islamist extremists, by this logic? This approach is original research.

After you added it to the navbox.

No, it was not in the article sourced, not on the article you put in the navbox. I know what Christian Identity is. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:14, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Many anarchists identity as socialists. They regard anarchists who oppose socialism as "ancaps" and consider them right-wing. If you want to include Anarchist attacks we can discuss them on a case by case basis. Hypotheticals are not useful. Late Night Coffee (talk) 02:35, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

I personally consider liberalism right wing, but unless you can find a real example of a "liberal terrorist attack" this isn't relevant. Late Night Coffee (talk) 02:35, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Why are you so keen on labelling Islamism right-wing? Late Night Coffee (talk) 02:35, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Hypotheticals are useful because if we're deciding on our own on what to put in this category then seeing what you object to putting in the category makes some things clearer. You have decided that we can cherry pick what can be in this category - and many anarchists do, but some don't identify as socialists either. But is a non-socialist, non-uncap anarchist a "right-wing" criticism? No. You 'cannot extrapolate to get information that no sources do not say, this is OR. If this is your approach to categories I find it concerning.

Because logically how is it not? Right-wing politics, if it has any definition, is about hierarchy. Few ideologies are more hierarchical than radical Islam. When applied to the left-right political spectrum, Islamism is considered right-wing. Why are you insistent on it not being included? What is your source for that? PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:57, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

"Radical Islam is generally considered right wing". Not in this context. Islamic terrorism is usually excluded from the definition of right-wing terrorism. The alternative descriptions avoid both terms. Currently the terms "Islamic terrorism", "Islamist terrorism", is what's used on Wikipedia, and so is right-wing terrorism / far-right terrorism (e.g. Far-right terrorism in Australia, Far-right terrorism in Spain). I don't think it would be very useful to get into the depths of theology and politics, Islamist attacks are normally regarded as a separate category in sources that use the term "right-wing terrorism". 05:05, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

• Yes, if sources describe it incidents as one thing, then I am not disputing that, but the entire debate started because you created a template titled "right-wing terrorism" where the majority of entries did not mention right-wing terrorism at all, including many religiously motivated incidents, by extrapolating from the definition. Things looked like it to you, so you added them, even if the article didn't say that, and categorized it as something entirely different. This is OR. According to the definition of RW terrorism this article gives (which you were extrapolating from), there is no reason not to include Islamist incidents in such a template, as they would fit. Radical Islam is considered "right wing". But no source describes radical islamic terror as that (because the definition is an exclusionary cionstruct designed to reflect counterrorism trends rather than ideology) - so we don't include them, which is why we do not do OR. You cannot add categories based on your own interpretations if the sources do not categorize something one way. Why did you bring this here? What is this solving? PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:27, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

It wasn't based on "looks like it to me" it was mostly based on Category:Right-wing terrorist incidents, and subcategorise of that. I planned to check things as I added the template. But I got sidetracked into an argument with you about Islamism before I managed to check most of them. Late Night Coffee (talk) 03:07, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. I wouldn't trust our categories without checking myself tbh. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:58, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

References

Motives

@Doug Weller: from my talk page:

Right-wing terrorism, if you are dubious, why not check them yourself instead of asking others? Doug Weller talk 15:42, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

I presume you mean this?

It can be motivated by racism, ultraconservatism, nationalism, neo-Nazism, extreme anti-communism, neo-fascism, ecofascism, ethnonationalism, religious nationalism, anti-immigration, anti-multiculturalism, antisemitism, Islamophobia, anti-government sentiment, patriot movements, secessionist or sovereign citizen beliefs, and occasionally, it can be motivated by opposition to abortion, anti-homeless people sentiment, and/or homophobia.

Late Night Coffee (talk) 02:45, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

I checked one of the sources, it didn't seem to support much of the list. I suspect most of that very long list is not in those sources. Late Night Coffee (talk) 02:45, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

These sorts of broad articles often accumulate very long and complex definitions where the specifics tend to be not well sourced at all after years of no one really checking. It is one of the many reasons I greatly dislike editing "broad scope articles". PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:02, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

References