Talk:Terrorgram

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:

• Terrorgram logo.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:40, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Sources

The Institute for Strategic Dialogue seems to be a political advocacy organization, and they seem to be the primary source claiming that this group exists. While it seems obvious that some people are racist and violent on the Internet, it's not clear to me that there exists a specific organization or group called "Terrorgram" which these people consider themselves to be a part of. There isn't really a source for this: even the rather-flimsy reference from the ISD itself doesn't claim this, and instead references a webpage at Hope not Hate, which is very openly a political advocacy organization.

A political advocacy group seems like a rather poor source for claims about the power and influence of politically oriented groups that they're opposed to. But even they do not say that such a group exists and calls itself that; their own page says that we must explore the so-called "Terrorgram" network -- this is their only justification for the term. They never present any evidence of someone in this group of people saying "Terrorgram" or identifying themselves with such an organization. Accordingly, I think this article should be amended to reflect that this is simply a term applied after the fact for convenient reference. jp×g 22:08, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Undocumented publication

https://trackingterrorism.org/chatter/terrorgram-manual-on-how-to-use-breastmilk-to-make-explosives/ 2A02:AA1:161D:2FB4:44D1:C1FF:FE14:838E (talk) 22:28, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Sources again

Graham Macklin, ‘“Praise the Saints”’, in A Transnational History of Right-Wing Terrorism, by Johannes Dafinger and Moritz Florin, 1st ed. (London: Routledge, 2022), 215–40, https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003105251-16.

This may be a better source than 'TERRORGRAM: from Buffalo to Bratislava, which is imprecise.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough 21:50, 13 August 2024 (UTC).

It's a very good source, but the thing is, while this source is about "Saints culture", which is mentioned here, it does not once mention Terrorgram. Nevertheless it may be useful to cover Saints culture on this page so we may want to use this source anyway. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:51, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Well, it mentions "terrorwave" channels I guess. Close enough. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:03, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Terrorgram Links to Steve Bannon's War Room podcast and Telegram channel

Neo-Nazi terrorist group using Steve Bannon account to radicalize people - by Ben Makuch, The Guardian, 20 August 2024

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/aug/20/neo-nazi-terrorist-group-steve-bannon-account

Should this be mentioned somewhere on the Wikipedia article? Thanks. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 16:47, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Far-Right ‘Terrorgram’ Chatrooms Are Fueling a Wave of Power Grid Attacks

A new article from Bloomberg UK. This does not appear to be mentioned in the current version of the Wikipedia article on the Terrorgram subject.

http://archive.today/2024.08.27-113833/https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-08-26/far-right-terrorgram-chatrooms-fuel-wave-of-power-grid-attacks

Of interest:

Damaging the power grid has long been a fixation of right-wing extremists, who have plotted such attacks for many years. They’ve been getting a boost recently from online venues such as “Terrorgram,” a loose network of channels on the social media platform Telegram where users across the globe advocate violent white supremacism. ... In June 2022, months before the Moore County shootings, users on the forum began offering more practical support in the form of a 261-page document titled “Hard Reset,” which includes specific directions on how to use automatic weapons, explosives and mylar balloons to disrupt electricity. One of the document’s suggestions is to shoot high-powered firearms at substation transformers.

Also this:

Brandon Russell, another former Iron March user, and a partner allegedly planned to shoot at multiple power plants around Baltimore. Communicating in a series of online chats, Russell and Sara Beth Clendaniel allegedly shared public maps of grid infrastructure around the US, widely distributed on Terrorgram channels, to find a “ring” of stations around the Baltimore region.

There must be other articles on the topic as well, but this is the first one I've seen that links Terrorgram to far-right terrorism and grid attacks. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 05:59, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Terrorgram is also mentioned several times in this new ProPublica story, from 3 September 2024:

The Accelerationists’ App: How Telegram Became the “Center of Gravity” for a New Breed of Domestic Terrorists

Another good source for the article. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 04:08, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Kaczynski wasn’t a “white supremacist”.

a part of the article claims the criteria for sanctification includes being a “white supremacist”, and yet it lists Ted K. as an example, who wasn’t a “white supremacist”. I don’t even think Timothy M. was a “white supremacist” either, he just owned a copy of the Turner Diaries and tabloids made sensationalist articles about how he “owned white supremacist literature”. 2A00:23C6:D603:8001:94FF:94CF:3D5:457D (talk) 20:41, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Whether he was actually a white supremacist is probably far less important than whether Terrorgrammers _think_ he was (or whether they just hate the same people he targeted). Groups like Terrorgram have a tendency to “claim” or co-opt people who weren’t necessarily on the same ideological page with them. For another example, see Gordon Kahl; he was an anti-government right-winger, but wasn’t openly pro-Nazi. However, the online activist (Riggin Scheer) who now goes by Kahl’s name online, is a neo-Nazi. 173.27.3.111 (talk) 22:41, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

list of zines and/or separate page(s) for zine entries/publications

would it be a good idea to add a section to list Terrorgram publications? Articled like this and the one for the O9A usually end up as an incoherent mash-up of sensationalist news articles. There isn’t really any mystery to Terrorgram zines. They’re on Archive org; I think it’d be dishonest to suggest that Trammers are only reading Hard Reset and not e.g. Militant Accelerationism. 2A00:23C6:D603:8001:94FF:94CF:3D5:457D (talk) 20:47, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

The two US school shootings mentioned in the "attack" table

If my edit is reverted for a second time, then this article will contain two US school shootings under "Attacks" in that table despite there being ZERO evidence that the perpetrator in each case was in any way inspired by content on Terrorgram affiliated Telegram channels, whereas there absolutely is such evidence in all of the other attacks in the table. The user who is reverting argues that the cited source, a Guardian article, is sufficient, simply because it states that the "group is accused of inspiring the 2022 mass shooting in Slovakia, a knife attack in Turkey, and recent school shootings in Madison, Wisconsin, and Antioch, Tennessee." However, the Guardian journalist does not provide anything to support that. Not to mention that "accused of inspiring" does not mean that Terrorgram was confirmed by authorities to be what inspired the shootings OBVIOUSLY! These shootings are still under investigation -- not even a year has past since they happened, with one of them being from this year! So why jump to conclusions? 110.142.94.82 (talk) 05:07, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

If you wanna split hairs, all those attacks are "accused" of being inspired by Terrorgram. However, Guardian doesn't have to provide evidence to satisfy some arbitrary level of "proof" of a random internet user. Wikipedia:Verifiability. As long as a reliable source states it, it's treated as truth for aforementioned reason. RKT7789 (talk) 05:14, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

So then it's totally fine and totally honest to just lump them in with the other attacks in the table which ARE confirmed? As it stands, this section of the article is CLEARLY misleading -- it just has the heading "attacks" without providing any disclaimer that some of the attacks in the table are merely "accused" of being inspired by Terrorgram. WITH such a disclaimer, I think that it would be acceptable. 110.142.94.82 (talk) 05:29, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Well, outside of Krajcik, the others were about the same level of confirmed to my recollection. All the others were more nebulous. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:30, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

This article is kind of difficult, because when people say Terrorgram they usually mean one of three things, which aren't exactly the same. It is sometimes conflated with the ideology they espoused ("saints culture") which predates them, but also there is some confusion between the broader group of terror promoting telegram channels and the specific group of people who called themself the "terrorgram collective". These are all slightly different things. It is fairly clear that all these attacks were related to the ideology in question but how much they related to the collective varies. I do think it is worth noting they were tied to it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:38, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

On a related note, we should definitely have an article on the True Crime Community, a topic that is notable and far more related to those two shootings than Terrorgram, but which I do not wish to subject myself to. God help whoever eventually makes that article. But I kind of hit a dead end when improving this article because I didn't know what direction to go. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:50, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

There's some academic literature on the community per Google Scholar. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 19:03, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

No actually, they all have solid connections to Terrorgram, born out of investigative work and court documents. 110.142.94.82 (talk) 05:57, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

The above was in reply to @PARAKANYAA 110.142.94.82 (talk) 05:58, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

The Antioch shooter plagiarized from Terrorgram publications, which is about as clear of a tie as there was with Eskisehir. I never looked into the other one but "read their materials" is probably enough to be included if we were judging this on our own. We are not, because WP:OR, so it doesn't matter. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:02, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

A note that the IP edited their post up top to read "interaction with Terrorgram affiliated Telegram channels" whereas before it read "any connection to Terrorgram". And I don't see any reason to strictly limit it to ones that had contact with the specific individuals. If someone reads their materials and quotes it in the manifesto that is a direct tie to the attack. This article is about terrorgram not just the terrorgram collective. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:10, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

@PARAKANYAA Yeah, I edited it after I read your comment in which you said that it's "fairly clear that all these attacks were related to the ideology in question but how much they related to the collective varies" and you also say that you "think it is worth noting they were tied to it." I found myself agreeing with you to a point, but the problem is that it contradicted what I originally meant by "zero evidence of connection to Terrorgram." What I meant by that was that there was no evidence that these attacks involved the Terrorgram community as a whole, but you have now convinced me that this is too high a standard. But now I think that "interaction with Terrorgram affiliated Telegram channels" is also too high a standard! So I have actually changed it again - let me know what you think. 110.142.94.82 (talk) 06:36, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

@PARAKANYAA You quoted: "read their materials" - as in you are quoting from a media article? If so, which one? 110.142.94.82 (talk) 06:10, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Well, I vaguely recall there was Terrorgram stuff in what he shared because I saw it at the time, what I believe the Guardian was referencing. Given that I don't think reviewing the uh, primary sources, is allowed here in such cases, upon a search it is repeated from a two second search. Oh, I wasn't quoting from a media article, I just meant it to delineate the criteria I imagined. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:14, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Is this article about Terrorgram or the Terrorgram Collective?

We are conflating them. The Collective is the one that received the terror designation but was not the only thing called terrorgram. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:38, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Aren't they functionally the same people? Honest question, if you think otherwise I'll be happy to learn more. RKT7789 (talk) 09:09, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Not really, no, the collective is a more specific group whereas terrorgram was sometimes used to refer to all terrorism-promoting telegram channels. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:15, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Logo

So as far as I'm aware, the current logo was added in this edit in January 2023. However, before that edit, and since the creation of this page in November 2022, a different logo was used. In the description of that logo, a source is cited. However, it is a documentary, and the logo seems to be the reproduction of a graphical element from the title card. I'm not sure this is proper use of a source. The documentary makers could have just made the logo for dramatic effect, or whatever.

For the new logo, it should be noted that for the longest time, no source was cited. However, a source is currently cited in the article, which is the ADL's (now defunct) glossary of hate. Except the ADL used inverted colours and reproduced the Telegram logo differently. Now due to these differences, I doubt that the ADL's logo is a result of (indirect) citogenesis, but it should be noted that their entry was created in April 2024, which is way after both of the above mentioned candidate logos were created.

In independent research, I found exactly one source from before the creation of this Wikipedia article. They used a Terrorgram logo similar to any of the previously mentioned candidates. It appears to have been published by a research centre of the Catholic University of Milan, and it contains something resembling the newer candidate logo.

As for current sources, a brief scan has revealed that reliable sources rarely use a logo to represent Terrorgram. I found a cybernews.com article from February 2025 that does use a logo. They credit the ADL for providing them with the logo, but I think they're actually using a modified version of the one from this article. There is also a voxpol.eu article from June 2024 that uses the ADL logo.

In short, I don't think the current use of a logo is well-sourced.

---

As for other issues, the current logo is poorly made. The tapering in the lower third of the shield begins at different heights at the two sides. The point of the shield at the bottom does not align with the point of the outline. The quarter circle at the top right does not close the same angle with the edges bordering it. The Telegram logo contains a variety of strange bends. Most egregiously, the left edge of the shield is not straight.

Also, the statement that the logo derives from Nazi insignias has no sources. It is probably true (regardless of whether the logo is authentic), but unsourced.

---

I myself would support removing the logo entirely. If it is not removed, I do not care which variant is used. If the logo itself is not removed, I believe the statement regarding it being derived from the Waffen-SS insignia should be removed. Dieknon (talk) 21:58, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

@Dieknon The logo is real, insofar as it appeared on their publications, which is as official as you can get with something so decentralized. The one that actually appears on their books is the current one. It is inverted though, so the ADL is more correct than how we are doing it now. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:09, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Well, I found a master's thesis. It mentions the logo currently in use on page 31, and states that it is derived from the Waffen-SS insignia. But it's from after the Wikipedia article's creation, and WP:THESIS does tell us that master's theses are only reliable if they have had significant influence. Also, I think they took the logo from Wikipedia, since it has the exact same visual errors. So this is probably just citogenesis.

I have also gotten my hands on a digital copy of the book The Hard Reset - A Terrorgram Production by the Terrorgram Collective. The book uses the old logo on page 247. But I wouldn't exactly call this use prominent, and I don't think WP:ABOUTSELF allows us to use self-sources for movements without central leadership. The book also seems to prefer using a different logo for itself. (As a humorous aside, they seem to have sourced the base from Wikipedia, since it has the same visual errors.)

I think trying to justify the current use of the logo is an uphills battle. Reliable sources appear elusive. Dieknon (talk) 22:38, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

@Dieknon I mean, the "Do it for the gram" one has it smack dab on the middle of the cover, which is surely prominent. And we don't need citations for images unless the images are graphs or something of the like. Do we need a secondary source for the fact that the images on squirrel are of squirrels? If I take a photo of a squirrel in my backyard, is it OR to include it because we don't have a secondary source calling it a squirrel? Not how that works, we can all see it is on their publications, it is fine to include. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:00, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

@PARAKANYAA: Ehh, you've changed my mind. I think the inverted colour logo is fair to use. The ADL seems to support it, and that can't be a product of citogenesis.

For the future perusers of this talk page, I've found a 2025 source. It probably takes from Wikipedia in its use of a Terrorgram logo, so I'm discounting it for that purpose, but their timeline does seem to mention events that the article does not currently cover. It also shows the cover of Do It For The 'Gram, which confirms that Wikipedia didn't invent the logo.

I guess we can just slap a on the Waffen-SS claim too. Dieknon (talk) 23:15, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

"Attacks"

@Ixgauth That someone says, years after the fact, that they agree with members of a group, it does not mean they are part of the group in question. If someone says they support 9/11 and agree with Osama bin Laden that does not make them a member of Al-Qaeda. Doing something in honor of a long-dead terrorist group (the Atomwaffen division) does not equate to being a member of that group. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:53, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

For a group this disconnected, it is absolutely reasonable that a person claiming that they are associated with that group would constitute proof of their connection. The difference between Terrorgram -- a lose network of violent online channels -- and the Atomwaffen division -- which has a much clearer organizational structure -- needs to be taken into account. There is no official Terrorgram organization that can explicitly take credit for these attacks in the way that Al-Qaeda could. The comparison falls apart from there. Ixgauth (talk) 23:01, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

@Ixgauth Incorrect, there was a specific group of people called the "Terrorgram Collective" that had a substantial media output, that is why they were able to be designated as a terrorist organization; you can't define a concept as a terrorist group. The other killers listed directly interacted with the Terrorgram Collective. The San Diego killers did not. There is no reason to treat that differently than with Atomwaffen. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:08, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

The opening of the article describes the group as a "decentralized network of Telegram channels." The idea that it is specifically about the collective is not backed textually. In some sections, such as the "Response" section, I would agree that it is clearly referring to the specific group. However, the writing in the rest of the article would suggest it is not written about the group in specifics. Even the name of the group is not "Terrorgram Collective" but simply "Terrorgram." Ixgauth (talk) 00:26, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

The group operated through a decentralized network of channels, yes. The consensus of past editing is that it is about the group, or we would have to remove the categories and the terrorist designation. The logo is for the group, the whole designation description is about the group, the other attacks involved the group.

Terrogram Collective is usually called Terrorgram. The problem with this article is really that it's talking about three separate things and describing them synonymously. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:48, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

It seems to me that the only section that the only section that is talking about the formal group is the section about government responses. Likely because most literature on the subject treats the two things as one and the same while a government can't reasonably label an amorphous group without a clear structure as 'terrorists.' I don't see any consensus towards your view that this is about a formal group -- notably, none was given in your question "Is this article about Terrorgram or the Terrorgram Collective?" above. Ixgauth (talk) 20:48, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't think most of the sources treat them as one but as two interconnected things. And why would we have a list of attacks attributed to a group or terrorist designation for a group when there is no group, if that's what we are arguing? Regardless, we cannot conflate doing something for something and being part of that something. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:51, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Well, again, there is no specific definition in the section about what the list of attacks represents. Why is a list of attacks as part of the centralized group more relevant than a list of attacks done for a decentralized group? I don't think it's a bad idea to separate those into different lists. However, I think that having them both is useful context -- especially when, as you said, the two concepts are highly interconnected. Ixgauth (talk) 20:16, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

There is no evidence they were part of the group, decentralized or not. That is not what the sources say, unlike with the other attacks. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:24, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Saying there is no evidence is ridiculous. You can say it is circumstantial or non-definitive if you’d like. However, there is clearly evidence. Ixgauth (talk) 21:26, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Neither of the sources say that! Where are you getting it? PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:27, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

The idea that pledging allegiance to and using phrases from a given group does not provide any evidence that a person is a part of a group is laughable. Again, you can deny whether it is sufficient for your interpretation of what the list is supposed to represent. However, it is unquestionably evidence. Ixgauth (talk) 21:34, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

He listed and declared allegiance to numerous groups and people that no longer exist, have not existed for decades (terrorgram also effectively no longer exists since its leaders were arrested). So no, that does not provide any evidence at all. Neither of the sources cited say they were members of it. We cannot extrapolate further than that. It is probably worth mentioning in a "legacy" section the influence their propaganda continues to have, using that as an example, but that is not membership. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:38, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

The only evidence provided that it is 'defunct' lists a date as late 2024 -- after which two of the attacks (outside of this one) occurred. So, I would say that that source is demonstrably incorrect. Terrorgram clearly still exists.

Given that, there is a huge difference between swearing allegiance to a defunct group and swearing allegiance to a currently operating group and placing oneself in the lineage of that group. It would be akin to someone pledging allegiance to Hitler after an attack. That wouldn't show that the person was a 1930s era German nazi. But it would provide evidence towards a neo-nazi connection or similar. Ixgauth (talk) 22:06, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. There is an entire, full length documentary from Frontline (American TV program) about its demise. It is defunct.

Are they not placing themself in the lineage of Nazis by swearing allegiance to Hitler? There is not at all a difference. There were plenty of people who swore allegiance to ISIS who were not members of ISIS. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:47, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm not stating that Wikipedia is a source. I'm saying that if you want to state that the org is defunct you need to source that claim yourself. Not just say it in the talk page here. It very much seems that the governments that have recently listed it as a terrorist org feel that it is alive enough to be worried about. Ixgauth (talk) 22:59, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

full documentary from 2025, says it is defunct.

ProPublica says it is defunct .

PBS says it is defunct .

ISD Global early 2025 says it is defunct. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:17, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

The ISD source is the one I noted from the article. It also seems to draw a distinction between early and late terrorgram killings -- specifically separating out the Antioch High School and Abundant Life Christian School shootings. If that is taken at face value, we have a much larger rewrite required.

The other sources are all one investigation, a collaboration between ProPublica, Frontline, and PBS. They seem to describe the 'demise' as simply those same actors moving from Telegram to other platforms such as X. The PBS source notes 'the violence hasn’t stopped' since arrests of key members. At the end, the PBS source even notes that 'Nikita was influenced online by an assortment of ideologies and groups that intersect with the Terrorgram ecosphere' when speaking about the February 2025 Trump assassination plot. The delineation you're making between that assassination attempt (along with the aforementioned two school shootings) and the San Diego shootings seem to be pretty nebulous to me. Ixgauth (talk) 23:52, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, the article as is is a mess, and does not clearly explain many things. That is not a reason to make the mess worse. This academic article explicitly says that "Win January 2021, the Telegram-based Terrorgram network was still active, although it does not currently exist in the same form". Generally in high quality RS it is recognized as no longer "a thing".

"The violence not stopping" - sure, and violence hasn't stopped from Nazis, people inspired by Nazis, people pledging allegiance to Nazis, has it (that being your previous example). That does not mean the Nazi Party is still around.

No, that is not what they are arguing. The ideology survives, but this is not a page for the ideology, which we already have a different page for, and which was never unique to Terrorgram anyway. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:07, 25 June 2026 (UTC)