text:
Talk:Islamic terrorism

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): WillJB185.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Indefinite duration semi-protection
was placed per this discussion at RfPP. -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 19:43, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Media attention in the US moved
Media attention in the US was moved to a new section in Jihadist extremism in the United States. A Thousand Words (talk) 06:00, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems best if the issues regarding The Guardian article are resolved here in a non-destructive manner. David A (talk) 08:55, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * thanks for starting the discussion. The paragraph about media bias in the United States section still places WP:UNDUE weight on media bias, since the topic of this article is not Media in the United States. Let's look at Jihadist extremism in the United States, the media bias is only 1 out of 7 sections yet now constitutes a third of all US-specific information in this. It therefore stands to reason that this paragraph is disproportionately large. It would therefore seem the obvious choice that either it be deleted, tagged for undue weight or that more material is added in the United States section. The paragraph certainly did not belong in the lead section of this article and no coherent argument was ever made why it belonged there. A Thousand Words (talk) 09:08, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem. I definitely don't want people who dislike some of the statistics that you find and insert into articles to take the opportunity to get rid of you.
 * Anyway, I personally find your logic to make sense. David A (talk) 09:26, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I put it in the lead. And TWICE I suggested it might be better somewhere else, and then moved it to its own section. So it's not surprising no coherent argument was made why it belonged there, is it? The issue so far as I'm concerned is whether there should be a media section. Doug Weller  talk 09:54, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think media and broader societal perspectives on Islamic terrorism are an important part of this article. It is within the nature of terrorism that how society reacts to the threat of terrorism is a key part of the significance of terrorism. Terrorism necessarily is about a societal impact out of proportion to the numbers killed. I would be very happy for the media section under discussion to be expanded to include more citations and non-US perspectives. That would be, I suggest, the best way of handling the concerns raised. But I think the material currently there should be retained: it is well-sourced, it is relevant, it is an important part of the topic. (I am happy for it to be also used in Jihadist extremism in the United States.)
 * While most Islamist terrorism is against Muslims in majority Muslim countries, as per various citations in the article, this article generally has a bias towards Western perspectives. (The article proper, for example, begins by quoting Bush, Blair and Obama.) That reflects known biases in Wikipedia as an English-language resource largely written by people in the US, UK, Australia, Canada etc. Lots of sections of this article that are not explicitly US-specific, but are dominated by US views and US citations. Ergo, I suggest ' view that the media bias [section] [...] now constitutes a third of all US-specific information in this [article] is unintentionally undercounting US perspectives in the article. I do not see the media section as constituting undue weight. Bondegezou (talk) 10:28, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It is not an important part of the page, media bias is tangential to the main topic of the article, which is terrorism. There's a Media bias in the United States article where the material has a better home. All US-specific material should be moved into the United States section. A Thousand Words (talk) 10:57, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * All top-level sections should have a WP:GLOBAL perspective, they cannot be started using the flawed pieces from The Guardian about the US. A Thousand Words (talk) 11:16, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * We're talking about a short paragraph that is well sourced to an academic journal paper. I see no desperate need to remove it.
 * How terrorism is perceived is not tangential. It is central to the nature of terrorism.
 * All top-level sections should have a WP:GLOBAL perspective You've just made up that rule.
 * they cannot be started using the flawed pieces from The Guardian about the US Your claim that the Guardian piece is flawed is just your opinion. Anyway, the text cites an academic journal paper, exactly the sort of material that we should be citing.
 * Would it be better if this material was contextualised with more studies from other contexts? Yes. I'll see if I can find anything. Bondegezou (talk) 18:16, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I have WP:BOLDly re-worked this material to try and address the concerns stated. I have added 3 citations to academic papers, which should tackle any concerns with The Guardian article. It also demonstrates that the material meets WP:DUE. I have added material on a study of UK and Danish media to give a more WP:GLOBAL perspective. Given concerns about the amount of material, I have summarised the prior text so as to describe multiple studies at once, without going in depth into the details of the one aforementioned study. This is a big re-write: I hope other editors feel it responds to concerns expressed, but I am happy to receive feedback, or feel free to edit. Bondegezou (talk) 18:50, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I agree that the "all top sections must have a global perspective" isn't a guideline or policy. Doug Weller  talk 19:30, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:BOLD aside, there is already a discussion in progress. There is no WP:CONSENSUS that there should be a top-level section saying Media reporting in this article. How is a fringe field like Critical terrorism studies a good representation of expertise in the field of terrorism? Top-level sections should contain the WP:GLOBAL perspective first and foremost. Since this section does not do this, it should be split up and moved to the standalone articles for the respective country. A Thousand Words (talk) 04:39, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I hoped edits addressing the concerns raised would help move us to a consensus, but obviously that is up to what other editors think!
 * Should there be a top-level section? Well, WP:DUE tells us to look to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. I have demonstrated multiple high-quality sources on this topic area, i.e. more prominence. So I think there is a better argument for a top-level section than previously. I wondered about subsuming the section into something on societal attitudes/reactions to terrorism? I think the new text & citations are helpful, but I'm not wedded to where they are positioned within this article.
 * Nothing at the Critical terrorism studies article supports your characterisation of it as a "fringe field". As with your critique of The Guardian piece, that looks like your WP:OR. More to the point, the citations added do not situate themselves as being critical terrorism studies, nor are they by the research groups described in that article. The citations given are academic journals, the sort of high-quality sourcing we are meant to use on Wikipedia. I'm happy to defend any of them at WP:RSN.
 * WP:GLOBAL is only an essay, not a policy, but I take what it says seriously. We've moved from a single study in the US to research covering the US, UK and Denmark. I think that's a step in the right direction. Other sub-sections in this article have a similar approach, having examples from a number of different countries. Bondegezou (talk) 08:14, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I haven't used these yet, but some additional possible citations:
 * Powell (2011) - US study
 * Powell (2018) - follow-up study to previous
 * Jørndrup (2020) - small Danish study of one incident (may be too specific)
 * Połońska-Kimunguyi & Gillespie (2016a) - French case study (may be too specific)
 * Połońska-Kimunguyi & Gillespie (2016b) - larger study by same team, looking at French and German media Bondegezou (talk) 08:54, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * According to article critical theory: In sociology and political philosophy, the term Critical Theory describes the Western-Marxist philosophy ... isn't marxism a revolutionist theory advocating violence to accomplish change in society? Perhaps this is why I've never read an official report by say, the Swedish Defence University, Europol, the Norwegian FFI or the German Verfassungsschutz saying they employ critical theory. Is a theory advocating political violence useful for analysing ... terrorism? A Thousand Words (talk) 05:50, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It would be helpful if you could confine yourself to discussions of how to improve this article based on Wikipedia policy and reliable sources. WP:SOAPBOXing is not helpful. Bondegezou (talk) 08:02, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Another, more adjacent, conclusion that could have been drawn is that perhaps this article could use fewer critical theory creations and instead use public reports by by the relevant US agencies? Which agencies would those be? Doesn't the FBI publish annual reports? A Thousand Words (talk) 10:25, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Marxism is an ideology that has almost consistently used gulags/extermination camps that have murdered several tens of millions of innocent people against anybody who disagree with it. It should definitely not be used as a source for an article discussing terrorism.
 * In addition, is it really appropriate to use sources that claim that a disproportionate focus is placed on Islamist terrorism when the vast majority of all terrorism acts in the world as a whole are in fact of Islamist origin?
 * It seems like we are using rationally and morally upside-down priorities here. David A (talk) 10:43, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Anyway, official public reports seem like much better sources, if they are possible to find, yes. David A (talk) 10:51, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * We're not using Marxism as a source. is claiming, without justification, that every citation provided constitutes Marxist critical theory. This is not true. Citations given are to highly reputable academic journals, the sort of sourcing Wikipedia likes. So, let's take this paper, one of the first citations added: it makes no mention of Marxism, it makes no mention of "critical theory", it makes no mention of "Critical terrorism studies".
 * Can we focus the discussion on reality? Bondegezou (talk) 10:53, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * If editors have concerns about whether material constitutes a reliable source, we can take this to WP:RSN. Bondegezou (talk) 10:54, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay. My apologies for the misunderstanding then.
 * I still find the claim that a disproportionate amount of focus is placed on Islamist terrorism, when most terrorism in the world is in fact Islamist, illogical though. David A (talk) 10:58, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Have you read the papers cited?
 * If for example 60% of something was X, but media reports gave the impression that 90% of something was X, then that would be a disproportionate amount of focus on X, even though most of this something is X. That would not be illogical. What the various papers are doing is a lot more complex and nuanced than that, but the broader point stands.
 * (The UK/Danish study, rather than the US studies, is in the journal Critical Studies on Terrorism. That doesn't make it Marxist. It makes no mention of Marxism.) Bondegezou (talk) 11:04, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It would be great if you quoted reliable sources when making such outlandish claims. My source says that out of 199 terrorists incidents that occurred in the European Union in 2014, only 2 (TWO) were religiously motivated. That number was 33 out of 205 in 2017, 24 out of 129 in 2018, and 21 out of 119 in 2019. – all a far cry from "most". — kashmīrī  TALK  12:14, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 1KWords seems to have a fundamental misunderstanding of Marxism, which is not "a revolutionist theory advocating violence to accomplish change in society" but, as our article says, "a method of socioeconomic analysis that uses a materialist interpretation of historical development, better known as historical materialism, to understand class relations and social conflict as well as a dialectical perspective to view social transformation. Editors should not be throwing around terms that they don't understand, let alone using them as arguments to keep material out of an article. I doubt that we will ever get complete agreement, but fortunately WP:CONSENSUS says "In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever." Nor of course does claiming policies/guidelines we don't have or false claims about sources. Doug Weller  talk 13:50, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Just a note that I am referring to the world as a whole regarding the number of terrorism attacks. If there are an average of around 1650 Islamist terrorist attacks every year according to the statistics that I have read, that would be the majority as far as I am aware. Still, I may be wrong. David A (talk) 14:08, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * However, if I am mistaken, I concede this discussion. I am very busy elsewhere anyway. David A (talk) 14:30, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

What I'm primarily saying is that the focus on using fringe critical theory should take a back foot in favor of using public reports by national agencies, perhaps NSA, CIA or FBI in the United States section. These are obviously expert in the field and therefore should take priority. If such a strategy was adopted, the discussion wouldn't even have gotten derailed by debates about Marxism (which falls under WP:OTHERSTUFF. This isn't a question of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, it is an issue of scope, because Media bias isn't the topic of this article. A Thousand Words (talk) 06:43, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Except that information provided by government agencies tends to be of lower quality than that provided by researchers, particularly if a particular government cannot be termed as uninvolved. Simply, fairly frequent instances of state-sponsored terrorism (i.e., deliberate attacks targeting civilians), studied by academic centres and sometimes tracked by activists, are routinely missing from government reports due to a variety of political considerations. — kashmīrī  TALK  08:50, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Besides the fact that those are, as you say, government agencies and thus influenced by politics, particularly at this time, those are WP:Primary sources, and we prefer secondary. Doug Weller  talk 14:44, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Nope, primary sources are those written by those directly involved in terrorism. In my experience for instance Europol writes better reports than most academics at European universities where the latter, for instance Islamologists, don't seem much interested in studying radicalization and consequently, they were all taken by surprise by the wave of jihadist attacks in Europe in the post 2014 time span. Just the fact that the number of attacks is here used to quantify the threat of terrorism is something security agencies do not do, they know better than to equate separatists vandalizing a goverment building with jihadists murdering hundreds in the 2004 Madrid bombings, where both incidents are counted as one attack. It just goes to show this is a poorly understood subject and that there is no justification for banning sources from government agencies. A Thousand Words (talk) 17:46, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 September 2020
I'm asking for the addition of the Turkistan Islamic Party as a terrorist group, as it is officially recognized as such and meets all the requirements. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkistan_Islamic_Party 189.202.186.69 (talk) 14:40, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Dawnseeker2000  14:50, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

 * Already listed in article as East Turkestan Islamic Movement. TFD (talk) 20:17, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Edit request
Could someone who is allowed to edit in ARBPIA area restore this image? Thanks--Watchlonly (talk) 22:26, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Was there a particular reason you reverted this? Is there a reason the edit request shouldn't be implemented? It's not a very  picture (small, very little detail), so I'm not sure it really adds anything, but you gave no actual justification for your revert. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:51, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * User talk:Watchlonly--Watchlonly (talk) 00:17, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Not a good picture. All we're seeing is a bunch of people outside a building, resolution is terrible, impossible to verify that it shows what it claims to show,... --RegentsPark (comment) 00:51, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The Dolphinarium in Tel Aviv.JPG
 * How about a picture of the Tel Aviv dolphinarium? It was the scene of the Dolphinarium discotheque massacre suicide bombing. A Thousand Words (talk) 05:16, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The edit was obviously by a non-ECP editor who is now trying to cooperate by using the talk page, but it is really pretty pointless as RegentsPark has pointed out. Doug Weller  talk 10:09, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That picture of the memorial is repeated in too many articles. If... and that is a big if, a picture is added in that section, maybe this one is better (it's an actual image after the attack, not just a memorial, and it's not present anywhere in Wikipedia).--Watchlonly (talk) 10:29, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://web.archive.org/web/20140704100303/http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/target/etc/modern.html. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. MER-C 10:32, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I fixed it with proper paraphrasing, reordering, and summarizing.--Artemis Seeker (talk) 06:22, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Should we use ISIL? ISIS? or Daesh?
Would be nice to have a standard acronym of this important terrorist group for the article. ISIL is used in the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant article. But a Google search of "ISIL Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" vs. "ISIS Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" finds ISIS is about 10X as popular as ISIL, and 20X as popular as Daesh, which is not so well known in English language sources. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 00:27, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Opening sentence of lead
The present opening (definitional) sentence is " Islamic terrorism (also Islamist terrorism or radical Islamic terrorism) refers to terrorist acts committed by Islamists who have a religious motivation".

This definition is a huge improvement on what was here only a month ago, but it is still flawed in being both tautologous and vague IMO. The ONLY areas of this subject area in which I would claim much expertise is in 'watching' quite a number of European Islamic terrorist articles. Therefore I am bringing the subject here in order to invite input.

I don't have any problem with the sentence up to "refers to terrorist acts" BUT "committed by Islamists who have a religious motivation" has a number of problems. 1) We usually define terrorist acts according to the ideology or motive of the perpetrator/group, NOT who the perpetrtor is (ie Islamism not Islamists) and the second half of the sentence "Islamists who have a religious motivation" is both tautologous ''(tautologous since ALL Islamists have a religious motivation/justification for everything they do. Whatever Islamism is, it is a rejection of the seperation between the religious and secular worlds in favour of a - usually very literalist/fundamentalist - interpretation of Islam ruling all aspects of life and morality) … and vague (what religious motivation? The reinstatement of the Dalai Lama? The banning of contraception?). The definition only works for those who already know what Islamic terrorism'' is and what its ideology/objectives are.

An additional detail is that the present definition fails to encompass the many 'sympathy' acts - which - especially in the case of European lone wolf incidents - are probably the majority of incidents and which are perpetrated "in sympathy with other Muslims" or with Islamist groups, (such as A-Q and IS) but where the perpetrator themselves could not possibly be described as having ANY ideology, including Islamist.

I'm going to try to come up with a clearer opening, but am posting here with my reasons. Input welcome, as is any 'pre-existing' definition which addresses these problems. Pincrete (talk) 11:55, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The issue I see is source(s). Your definition may make more sense but where does it come from? Your own reasoning? That's problematic in wikipedia. Perhaps the solution is to have a section or subsection of different definitions from different sources, such as is or was found in the Islamism article. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 15:33, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree about sources, but firstly, we are entitled to summarise the body, secondly a definition which simply doesn't define - which is so vague as to be almost meaningless - is not much of a definition. I have seen 'official' definitions which simply spoke of unspecified "religious motivation" - what does that tell anyone? It could mean terrorism advancing Druidism! Pincrete (talk) 17:54, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry to say disagree with you the opening line is clearly sourced the main Islamic groups Al-Qaeda, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and the Taliban  and any attack or suicide bombing by these groups are clearly religious motivated .One can argue about the other groups whether they carry out attacks due political leaning or religious motivation like the Irish Republican Army ie whether it is due to Irish nationalism or Religious  motivation but in these cases it is clear.Restore lead if there is consensus please change it.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:16, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You aren't disagreeing with me, since I have never said, nor thought that there is not religious motivation to this kind of terrorism. I'm simply saying that the statement is so vague as to be almost meaningless. This is especially the case when preceded by the term 'Islamism', since Islamism by very definition is motivated by religion (actually of course a particular interpretation of Islam, not religion in general as the present text implies). The present definition is like saying "Right-wing terrorism is terrorism perpetrated by right-wingers which is politically motivated" - this is simply restating the obvious without even attempting any clarification of what the motives or beliefs are. Pincrete (talk) 22:05, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

 * ... or acts perpetrated in sympathy with such groups and aims.
 * Pincrete, you indicated that this refers to "lone wolf" attacks by religiously ignorant. It sound like a good addition, but do you have any kind of source for it? --Louis P. Boog (talk) 00:30, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Would emphasise there is a difference between ideology and motivation: for example the majority of islamist acts of terror are perpetrated against other muslims. Likewise, if we look at academic works such as by Abrahms then we can see that terrorist “motivations” are complicated and counterintuitive, and arguably often not religious. Obviously this gets very complex and is difficult to neatly summarise in an opening paragraph, my view is that we should simply omit motivation from the intro as it is practically impossible to concisely cover it without leaving it open for dispute Personally my preferences would be to simply remove the part about motivation. John wiki: If you have a problem, don't mess with my puppy... 00:41, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

 * Louis P. Boog, the "acts perpetrated in sympathy with such groups" is largely based on my knowing the individual cases of lone-wolf attacks in Europe, where expressions of sympathy with (rather than actual involvement with) 'known groups' is common. There may well be a source summarising these trends, but I don't know them, so there is a degree of WP:OR in my comment. There is a specific UK intelligence internal analysis (leaked) which notes that UK perps are rarely from staunchly religious backgrounds and more often 'converts' or from 'lapsed' backgrounds than having religion as a stable part of their upbringing.

 * John wiki, I was using ideology/motivation in the most obvious meaning of CLAIMED objective - ostensible reason - as this is probably the only viable basis to refer to the subject … ie, why THEY say they do these things. If this were the IRA the motivation would be the nationalistic objective of a united Ireland free from UK control. I don't see how one can avoid ideology/motivation as a key defining feature, although I recognise that the motivation my be less 'concrete' than 'nationalist' groups like the IRA - or for that matter PLO. Pincrete (talk) 18:14, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Personally, I would prefer the replacement of the term "Islamist" with the term "Muslim". This will make the definition less of a tautology. Nxavar (talk) 09:58, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

POV issue: No image of attacks
Checking for images that give visual evidence for Islamic terrorism I only found an image that showed photos of victims. In contrast, the article of terrorism is full of pictures of destruction resulting from acts of terror. I am including the description of those who are not state-perpetrated: United Airlines Flight 175 hits the South Tower of the World Trade Center during the September 11 attacks of 2001 in New York City

Attack at the Bologna railway station on August 2, 1980 by the neo-fascist group Nuclei Armati Rivoluzionari. With 85 deaths, it is the deadliest massacre in the history of Italy as a Republic.

Aftermath of the 2002 bomb attack at the Myyrmanni shopping mall in Myyrmäki, Vantaa, Finland. The bombing was especially shocking for Finland and the other Nordic countries, where bombings are extremely rare.

The Beslan school siege by Chechen rebels on September 1, 2004. It was the deadliest massacre in the history of Russia in the 21st century.

Aftermath of the King David Hotel bombing by the Zionist militant group Irgun, July 1946

A view of damage to the U.S. Embassy in the aftermath of the 1983 Beirut bombing caused by Islamic Jihad Organization and Hezbollah

Islamabad Marriott Hotel bombing. Some 35,000 Pakistanis have died from terrorist attacks in recent years

Dawabsheh family home after Duma arson attack

The Wall Street bombing at noon on September 16, 1920 killed thirty-eight people and injured several hundred. The perpetrators were never caught. Is there some self-censorship going on? For starters we can copy here all images from the "Terrorism" article that are about Islamic terrorism. Nxavar (talk) 09:50, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't believe there has been a deliberate effort to suppress images here. More likely it didn't occur to anyone (me for example) that more images were needed. If you want to add some images, and they are relevant to the event described, why would anyone object? ~Anachronist (talk) 23:33, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Like most articles that describe many individual events, the best image is a composite: American Civil War, Russo-Japanese War. I suggest we make one from the above list. Are you technically able to create that composite? DenverCoder9 (talk) 00:43, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 September 2021
Add the following under 'Oceania':

New Zealand
On Friday, September 3, 2021, a Tamil Muslim named Ahamed Aathil Mohamed Samsudeen committed a terrorist attack by stabbing multiple people in Auckland, New Zealand. 203.96.84.1 (talk) 15:55, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. The section is already overlong and bloated, and this was a relatively small scale attack. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:41, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This seems like a reasonable request and doesn't need consensus, just adherence to policy. In particular we have WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENT, so it would be best to wait and see what coverage there is. If this has received more significant coverage outside of New Zealand than Al Jazeera, I would be in favor of including it. That said, the Al Jazeera source is quite good, particularly in describing how this attack resulted in a change in legislation to close a loophole that would have allowed this attacker to remain detained rather than be released. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:30, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Cite error
There is an undefined refname in the Martyrdom/Istishhad section. It was introduced by this edit but never defined.

Both instances of the following:

should be replaced with;

Thanks ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 11:30, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:01, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 15:33, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Proposed split and merge into List of Islamist terrorist attacks
This article has grown to an indigestible length and complexity due to the age-old issue on Wikipedia of the discussion of the subject itself being confused with the need to add endless illustrative examples of the subject - in this case, an exhaustive list of terroristic acts. I propose a split whereby all of the material currently listed under Islamic terrorism be split off, condensed and merged into List of Islamist terrorist attacks. By my rough estimate, this would shave about a third of the article off and leave the remaining 200,000 bytes with a much better chance of being shaped up into something half readable. As it stands, the country-by-country examples listed out ad nauseum on this thematic page add little benefit. Thoughts? Iskandar323 (talk) 21:14, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree. TFD (talk) 22:08, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * A list would require the creation of numerous small articles I suppose. A better alternative would be to create "per continent" Islamist terrorist attacks articles. Nxavar (talk) 08:24, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Terrorist attacks in Nigeria
slamic terrorism (also Islamist terrorism or radical Islamic terrorism) refers to terrorist acts with religious motivations carried out by fundamentalist militant Islamists and Islamic extremists.[1][2][3]

The 4th october 2021 attacks against Nigeria, Owerri in 2001 were carried out by the Islamist terrorist group al-Qaeda Incidents and fatalities from Islamic terrorism have been concentrated in eight Muslim-majority countries (Afghanistan, Egypt, Iraq, Libya, Nigeria, Pakistan, Somalia, and Syria),[4] while four Islamic extremist groups (Islamic State, Boko Haram, the Taliban, anddeaths from terrorism in 2015.

Since at least the 1990s, these terrorist incidents have occurred on a global scale, affecting not only Muslim-majority countries in Africa and Asia, but also Russia, Australia, Canada, Israel, India, the United States, China, Philippines, Thailand and countries within Europe.[Note 1] Such attacks have targeted both Muslims and non-Muslims with one study finding 80% of terrorist victims to be Christians.[10][11] In a number of the worst-affected Muslim-majority regions, these terrorists have been met by armed, independent resistance groups,[12] state actors and their proxies, and elsewhere by condemnation by prominent Islamic figures.[13][14][15]

Justifications given for attacks on civilians by Islamic extremist groups come from extreme interpretations of the Quran,[3] the hadith,[16][17] and sharia law.[3] These include retribution by armed jihad for the perceived injustices of unbelievers against Muslims;[18] the belief that the killing of many self-proclaimed Muslims is required because they have violated Islamic law and are disbelievers (takfir);[19] the overriding necessity of restoring and purifying Islam by establishing sharia law, especially by restoring the Caliphate as a pan-Islamic state (especially ISIS);[20] the glory and heavenly rewards of martyrdom;[17] the supremacy of Islam over all other religions.[Note 2]

The use of the phrase "Islamic terrorism" is disputed. In Western political speech, it has variously been called "counter-productive", "highly politicized, intellectually contestable" and "damaging to community relations", by those who disapprove of the characterization 'Islamic'.[23][24][25] Others have condemned the avoidance of the term as an act of "self-deception", "full-blown censorship" and "intellectual dishonesty".

Madonna P141 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.112.50.146 (talk) 23:10, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 September 2022
2405:201:680B:A09D:548B:65DA:409A:4B12 (talk) 20:15, 5 September 2022 (UTC) Militant word should be removed. Terrorists are not militant with a cause but bad people.
 * ❌ most terrorists state that their actions are in support of one cause or another. - Arjayay (talk) 20:20, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

quick clarification
I don't know if this has been brought up, but Muslims do not call these people actual Muslims as they commit acts that are mentioned as disappeasing by many records. IGotHacked12 (talk) 22:10, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2023
Please remove islamic from this. Islam is a very peaceful religion. The people that conduct these attacks are not true muslims but act to hurt the actual muslims. Please, make the world a better place and let’s all come together as brothers and sister 2605:59C8:1C9:C910:8D33:CA6D:319E:844A (talk) 04:56, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: if WP:RS describe these folks as Islamic then we do as well Cannolis (talk) 05:02, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Can't find the words quoted.
In the lead's last paragraph, I cannot find the words "self-deception", "full-blown censorship" and "intellectual dishonesty" in either of the sources.

Also upon examining the second source, Caroline Marcus, does not appear to have recognition or accomplishment in the relevant field. Additionally, the content of both the sources in question appears to contain extremely biased or inflammatory language, which may not meet the standard for reliable and neutral sources. 39.41.141.223 (talk) 06:00, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

 * Even if the sources remain, the sentence should be rephrased as follows: 'Others have criticized the avoidance of the term, stating that it may be perceived as a form of self-deception and could impede the ability to have open and honest discussions about the subject. 39.41.141.223 (talk) 06:05, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * More crucially, the Marcus piece is not only irrelevant and undue, but also opinion. It's going. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:56, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually, it appears the John Fund piece is also opinion, and I could see these terms nowhere. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:04, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

"Jihadi terrorism" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jihadi_terrorism&redirect=no Jihadi 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  until a consensus is reached. GnocchiFan (talk) 16:45, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Additional justification given for attacks on civilians by Islamic extremist groups
In the section that begins "Justifications given for attacks on civilians by Islamic extremist groups," isn't an additional one that such groups regard civilians as fair targets because the members of a given target democratic nation's populace are the ones that chose to vote in a government that supposedly oppresses Muslims (and, thus, these civilians bear ultimate responsibility for their government's actions)? 2605:A000:FFC0:5F:F9BD:9D:B97C:57D4 (talk) 02:48, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe so, but if you can't find a reliable source stating this, we can't include it in the article. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:52, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2024
Please added Hindu terrorism, Hindutva, and Hindu nationalism in the "See also" section of the article. As these are all Hindu fundamentalist idealogy which are noted for anti-Islamic activities. 2409:40E0:1008:D849:A8B6:6253:FAD1:B80C (talk) 12:24, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

 * ✅ TheNuggeteer (talk) 06:38, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Islamic terrorism


text:
User talk:AntonR~enwiki/To Do/Germany

History of Germany a. making money worthless b. paying using borrowed money and then repudiating the debt (by Hitler)
 * What led to rise of the Nazis (add Pecularities of Germans -also part of Germany?);
 * groups and individuals instrumental in it
 * meddling by Stalin
 * German's unwillingness to agree with terms of the Treaty of Versailles and successfull effort not to pay reparations via

 * why wasn't Kaiser prosecuted (and noone from the military)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User talk:AntonR~enwiki/To Do/Germany


text:
Category:Bentley

This category refers to the British luxury car marque, Bentley, owned by the Volkswagen Group since 1998.

title: Category:Bentley


text:
User talk:AntonR~enwiki/To Do

/Germany /Protocols of Elders of Zion

list of secrets gov-ts tried (or Still trying) to hide
opposite of Conspiracy Theory--AntonR 04:01, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)

title: User talk:AntonR~enwiki/To Do


text:
User talk:AntonR~enwiki/To Do/Protocols of Elders of Zion

In trying to find out the reasoning for the promulgation of it stumbled upon this - "...16 октября того бедового года в "Московских ведомостях" он печатает замечательную статью против кромешников: "Что нам делать в эти тревожные дни?"

- the Politburo

makebelieve--AntonR 03:58, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)


text:
Julius Peppers

Julius Frazier Peppers (born January 18, 1980) is an American former professional football player who was a defensive end and linebacker in the National Football League (NFL). He played college football for the North Carolina Tar Heels, where he was recognized as a unanimous All-American, and was selected by the Carolina Panthers second overall in the 2002 NFL draft, and also played for the Chicago Bears from 2010 through 2013 and the Green Bay Packers from 2014 to 2016. After rejoining the Panthers for the 2017 season, he retired after the 2018 NFL season.

Peppers was named to the Pro Bowl nine times, and both the first and second All-Pro teams three times each. In his rookie season, he was named NFL Defensive Rookie of the Year in 2002, where he recorded 12 sacks, 5 forced fumbles, and an interception, all while playing in only 12 games. He was named to the 2000s and NFL 2010s All-Decade Teams. In 2024, Peppers was selected for induction into the Pro Football Hall of Fame, becoming the first player drafted by the Carolina Panthers to be inducted.

Early life
Peppers was born in Wilson, North Carolina, and raised in nearby Bailey. He attended Bailey Elementary School, Southern Nash Middle School, and Southern Nash High School where he played football for Coach Ray Davis. By the time he was a senior at Southern Nash High School, Peppers had grown to 6 ft, 225 lb. When Peppers arrived at Southern Nash his freshman year, Davis felt that Peppers would be an asset on the gridiron for the Firebirds, despite the fact that Peppers had never played football before. During his high school career, Peppers played running back and defensive lineman, finished his career with 3,501 rushing yards and 46 touchdowns, and was one of the most dangerous defensive linemen in the state.

Peppers lettered in basketball and was voted all-conference as a power forward for four consecutive years. In 1998, Southern Nash won the state championship in track for the first time in the school's history. Peppers contributed as a sprinter, winning the state championship in the 4×400 meter team relay (3:23.10 minutes) and finishing second as a triple jumper (14.05 meters). During his senior year (1997–98), he was named to the Parade magazine high school All-America team in football as an all-purpose talent and was named Male Athlete of the Year by the North Carolina High School Athletic Association. In 2005, Peppers was named by the Rocky Mount Telegram newspaper as one of the 50 Greatest Athletes from the Twin County (Nash and Edgecombe) area.

College career
Peppers attended the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, where he played defensive end for the Tar Heels from 1998 to 2001. As a true freshman in 1998, he was redshirted. Peppers led the nation with 15 quarterback sacks during his sophomore season (2000), and earned first-team All-Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC) and second-team All-American honors. Following his junior season in 2001, he was a first-team All-ACC selection and was recognized as a unanimous first-team All-American. He won the Chuck Bednarik Award as the nation's top defensive player and the Lombardi Award as the best collegiate lineman and the Bill Willis Trophy as the nation's best defensive lineman. He finished tenth in Heisman Trophy voting in 2001. In the three seasons at North Carolina, Peppers started 33 of the 34 games in which he played. He is currently ranked second all-time in UNC history with 30.5 sacks. He accumulated 53 stops behind the line of scrimmage, 167 tackles, five interceptions, two fumble recoveries, five forced fumbles, 13 passes deflected, and 42 quarterback pressures (hurries) and returned two interceptions and one fumble recovery for touchdowns.

Basketball
While at the University of North Carolina, Peppers was a walk-on member of the men's basketball team. The North Carolina football coach, Carl Torbush, said he could play football and then be a walk-on for Bill Guthridge on the North Carolina men's basketball team. He was a reserve on the 1999–2000 Tar Heels team that made it to the Final Four. Peppers was a reserve on the 2000–01 men's basketball team. In the NCAA Tournament, Peppers scored 21 points and grabbed 10 rebounds in a loss to Penn State in the second round. After the season, Peppers decided to focus solely on football and did not play basketball in his final season.

Awards and honors

 * Sporting News Freshman All-American (1999)
 * First-team All-ACC (2000)
 * Second-team Associated Press All-American (2000)
 * Second-team Football News All-American (2000)
 * Division I-A sacks leader (2000)
 * First-team All-ACC (2001)
 * Consensus All-American (2001)
 * Chuck Bednarik Award (2001)
 * Bill Willis Trophy (2001)
 * Lombardi Award (2001)

Pre-draft
Peppers was a highly regarded prospect coming into the 2002 NFL draft earning comparisons to Hall of Famer Lawrence Taylor for his ability to dominate a football game.

2002 season
Peppers was selected in the first round with the second overall pick in the draft by the Carolina Panthers. On September 8, 2002, against the Baltimore Ravens, Peppers played in his first career NFL game, in which he made an impact by deflecting a pass by Ravens quarterback Chris Redman that was intercepted by linebacker Dan Morgan, who proceeded to race 22 yards down field with under two minutes remaining in the game to preserve the victory; the Panthers won the game by a score of 10–7.

In Peppers' second career NFL game, which came on September 15, against the Detroit Lions, he lived up to his billing with three sacks and a forced fumble for Carolina. Peppers had five tackles including one for a loss, and a deflected pass in the 31–7 victory.

Later that season, in a 14–13 loss against the Dallas Cowboys in week 6, Peppers produced three tackles, three sacks, one forced fumble, one pass defensed, and an interception of Cowboys quarterback Quincy Carter that he returned 21 yards, before lateralling the ball to linebacker Mark Fields, who gained an additional 30 yards. Peppers' second three-sack outing of the year tied the NFL rookie record for three-sack games in a season, set by Leslie O'Neal of the San Diego Chargers in 1986.

As a rookie, Peppers helped the Panthers boast the only defensive unit since the NFL merger in 1970 to improve from last in the league in total defense to second in one season. Peppers finished his rookie season with 29 solo tackles, seven assisted tackles, 12 sacks, five forced fumbles, one interception, and five passes defensed. For his efforts Peppers earned the NFL Rookie of the Month Award in October 2002 and the 2002 Associated Press NFL Defensive Rookie of the Year Award. With four games remaining in the season, Peppers was suspended for violating the NFL's substance abuse policy for taking a banned dietary supplement. Peppers said that he was given a dietary supplement by a friend to help him fight off fatigue. The pills contained an ephedra substance that was banned by the NFL. Peppers said it was an honest mistake on his part and that he would be more cautious in the future.

2003 season
In Peppers second season, he was part of a defensive line that included Brentson Buckner, Kris Jenkins, and Mike Rucker. Together, the unit were key players that helped the Panthers reach the Super Bowl. In the 2003 season, Peppers had seven sacks, 46 total tackles (39 solo), three passes defended, and three forced fumbles in 16 games and starts.

In the Wild Card Round against the Dallas Cowboys, Peppers chased down Cowboys receiver Joey Galloway who was one of the fastest players in NFL history, and run him out of bounds after a 28-yard gain. Later in the fourth quarter as the Cowboys were trying to mount a comeback, Peppers intercepted Dallas quarterback Quincy Carter and return it 34 yards to the Cowboys 11 yard line. Peppers recorded one tackle, one interception, and one pass defensed in the game. The Panthers won the game 29–10. In the Divisional Round against the St. Louis Rams, Peppersrecorded a sack, two passes defensed, and four tackles, one of which came on a shuffle pass in the second quarter to running back Marshall Faulk. The game went double overtime, as the Panthers defeated the Rams 29–23. The next week in the NFC Championship against the Philadelphia Eagles, Peppers recorded two tackles in helping to lead a dominant defensive performance for the Panthers as they held the Eagles to just three points. The Panthers won by a score of 14–3.

The Panthers reached the Super Bowl for the first time in franchise history and matched up against the New England Patriots. Peppers recorded two tackles in the 32–29 loss. Peppers and Donovan McNabb were the only people to ever play in both the NCAA men's basketball Final Four and the NFL's Super Bowl.

2004 season
In Week 5 of the 2004 season, Peppers intercepted quarterback Jake Plummer for a 97-yard return, which was an NFL record for a defensive lineman. Peppers recorded four tackles, one interception, and one pass defensed in a losing effort to the Broncos by a score of 17–20.

In a game against the Tampa Bay Buccaneers in Week 12, Peppers produced one of the NFL's most dominant performances of the season by blocking a 26-yard field goal attempt, recording a 46-yard interception return for a touchdown, which was Peppers first career touchdown scored and was the first interception returned for a touchdown by a defensive lineman in Carolina Panthers history. He recorded one pass defensed, one sack and four tackles including one stop in which he chased down Buccaneers running back Michael Pittman from behind on a 68-yard screen pass in the second quarter. The Panthers defeated the Buccaneers 21–14.

In Week 15 against the Atlanta Falcons, Peppers caught a fumble in midair by Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick and raced 60 yards the other way for a Panthers touchdown. Peppers recorded three tackles, one being for a loss of yards, one pass defensed and the 60 yard fumble recovery for a touchdown. The Panthers lost in the end by a score of 34–31.

Peppers set an NFL record by recording 143 total interception return yards which is the most ever recorded in a single season by a defensive lineman. He had a combined 203 interception and fumble return yards which is the most ever by a defensive lineman in a single season since the NFL merger in 1970.

Peppers finished the season with 52 solo tackles, 12 assisted tackles, 11 sacks, four forced fumbles, one fumble recovery, two interceptions, nine passes defensed, four stuffs, one blocked kick, and two defensive touchdowns.

For his accomplishments, Peppers was named to his first NFL Pro Bowl while earning a spot on the NFL's All Pro First-Team. Peppers was named the NFC Defensive Player of the Month in November 2004 and finished fourth overall in the voting by the Associated Press for the AP NFL Defensive Player of the Year Award.

2005 season
Peppers broke a bone in his right hand in the sixth game of the season against the Lions, but returned to the game with a cast and help the Panthers get a win 21–20. He played the next few games with a cast on his hand. Peppers recorded two three-sack games during the season, one against the Tampa Bay Buccaneers in Week 9, in which addition to his three sacks, Peppers recorded five tackles.

His other three-sack effort came against the Dallas Cowboys in Week 16, in this game Peppers recorded eight tackles, one pass defensed, and one blocked kick. Despite Peppers' efforts, the Panthers lost 20–24.

For the season, Peppers recorded 38 solo tackles, 12 assisted tackles, 10.5 sacks, two forced fumbles, one fumble recovery, six passes defensed, five stuffs, and one blocked kick. Peppers made his second Pro Bowl for his efforts.

In the Wild Card Round of the playoffs, Peppers was part of defensive effort that held scoreless the New York Giants offense that ranked third in the NFL in points per game. Peppers contributed two tackles, one sack, and one pass defensed to the victory.

In the Divisional Round against the Chicago Bears, Peppers hurt his shoulder while driving Bears running back Thomas Jones out of bounds near the goal line in the fourth quarter. Peppers went to the locker room after the play, and later returned to the bench but not the game. Peppers recorded three tackles and helped the Panthers get the win 29–21.

In the NFC Championship, against the Seattle Seahawks Peppers played with a hurt shoulder, but recorded six tackles, one being for a loss of yards, but the Panthers lost 34–14.

2006 season
Peppers again recorded two three-sack games during the 2006 season, his first against the Minnesota Vikings in Week 2, in which he recorded eight tackles, three sacks, one stuff, one pass defensed, and one blocked kick.

In Week 3 against the Cleveland Browns, Peppers recorded five tackles, one being for a loss of yards, a sack, forced fumble, fumble recovery on the same play, five quarterback hits, and a pass defensed. In the game, Peppers made an athletic play when Browns fullback Lawrence Vickers took a handoff right but pulled up to pass the ball. Peppers, playing left end, read the play before it began to develop, sprinted downfield and tipped the ball away from tight end Kellen Winslow II. Peppers dominant play helped the Panthers defeat the Browns 20–12.

In Week 6 against the Baltimore Ravens, Peppers became the Panthers' all-time sacks leader after registering two sacks during the game. Peppers recorded eight tackles and a forced fumble.

In Week 10 against the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, Peppers recorded four tackles, three sacks, one pass defensed, and one fumble recovery in helping to defeat the Buccaneers 24–10. Peppers was so dominant in the game that ESPN Monday Night Football analyst Joe Theismann compared him to Lawrence Taylor, whom Joe had played against while he was a quarterback for the Washington Redskins, and Taylor a linebacker for the New York Giants.

Peppers earned the NFC Defensive Player of the Month Award for the month of October 2006, his second such award. Peppers finished the season with 49 solo tackles, nine assisted tackles, 13 sacks, three forced fumbles, two fumble recoveries, six passes defensed, seven stuffs, and two blocked kicks. His 18 tackles for loss led the NFL. For his efforts, Peppers earned a trip to his third consecutive Pro Bowl and was named NFL First-Team All Pro for the second time in his career.

2007 season
Following Panthers safety Mike Minter's retirement after the 2006 season, Peppers was named as the Panthers defensive captain. Peppers had a down season in 2007 after only recording 30 solo tackles, eight assisted tackles, 2.5 sacks, three forced fumbles, two fumble recoveries, one interception, five passes defensed, one stuff, and two blocked kicks. Before the season started, Peppers suffered from an undisclosed illness and lost weight. Peppers missed the final two games of the season with a sprained MCL in his right knee.

2008 season
The 2008 season was a bounce back year for Peppers after recording a career-high 14.5 sacks. Peppers changed from left defensive end to right defensive end before the season, which was the position he played in college at the University of North Carolina. His best performance of the season came against the Oakland Raiders in Week 10, a game in which he recorded seven tackles, three sacks, two forced fumbles, and one pass defensed, Peppers moved all along the defensive line and dominated against the Raiders, leading the Panthers to a 17–6 victory. He earned his second NFC Defensive Player of the Week Award after his performance.

Peppers finished the season with 40 solo tackles, 11 assisted tackles, 14.5 sacks, five forced fumbles, five passes defensed, four stuffs, and one blocked kick. After the season, Peppers earned a spot on the NFC Pro Bowl team, which was the fourth of his career. He earned Second-Team All Pro honors. The Panthers made the playoffs after the 2008 NFL regular season but lost in the Divisional Round to the Arizona Cardinals by a score of 33–13. On January 16, 2009, ESPN reported that Peppers told ESPN's Chris Mortensen he did not intend to re-sign a long-term deal with the Panthers and would like to explore options with another team, specifically one with a 3–4 defensive formation. He expressed the desire or willingness to convert from a defensive end to an outside linebacker. Peppers said he would request a trade if franchise tagged. However, despite his request, the Panthers placed the franchise tag on him on February 19.

2009 season
The 2009 season ended Peppers' first stint with the Panthers. Peppers began the season well by recording 5 tackles, 1 sack, 1 forced fumble, 1 pass defensed, and 1 blocked kick in a Week 1, 38–10 loss against the Philadelphia Eagles. Peppers went without a sack during the next two games against the Atlanta Falcons and Dallas Cowboys, both losses as the Panthers started the season 0–3, causing Panthers linebacker Jon Beason to question Peppers' intensity on a radio show in Charlotte, North Carolina. Beason would later admit that he was wrong about saying this about Peppers and said he thought that Julius would go down as one of the best players to ever play in the NFL.

Peppers bounced back in Week 5 of the 2009 season against the Washington Redskins by recording five tackles, two sacks, and along with the help of Panthers linebacker Thomas Davis, tackled Washington running back Clinton Portis in the end zone for a safety in the 20–17 victory. In Week 8, in a 34–21 win against the Arizona Cardinals, Peppers recorded two tackles, one sack, one forced fumble, one interception for a 13-yard touchdown, and one pass defensed earning him his third NFC Defensive Player of the Week Award. In Week 9, in a 30–20 loss against the New Orleans Saints, Peppers broke his right hand, but continued to play with a cast on his hand over the next few games.

In Week 15 against the Minnesota Vikings, Peppers played one of his best games of his career. Peppers had five quarterback hurries and was all over the field, causing sports writer Peter King to say that Peppers looked like Lawrence Taylor and Deacon Jones rolled into one dominant force.

Peppers played so well he caused Vikings Pro Bowl left tackle Bryant McKinnie to be benched by Vikings head coach Brad Childress. Peppers' effectiveness not only prompted Childress to switch tackles, but to consider making a quarterback change, which Vikings quarterback Brett Favre strongly resisted. Childress said he wanted to protect Favre, who he said was getting his rear end kicked and was taking a beating. In Week 17, in a 23–10 win against the New Orleans Saints played at Bank of America Stadium in Charlotte, North Carolina, Peppers played in his final game as a member of the Carolina Panthers during his first stint with the team. Peppers recorded three tackles, one interception, and one pass defensed. The interception Peppers recorded was, at the time, thought to be the final play of his Panthers career, but Peppers eventually returned to his home state team before the 2017 NFL season. Julius finished the season with 36 solo tackles, six assisted tackles, 10.5 sacks, five forced fumbles, one fumble recovery, two interceptions, five passes defensed, three stuffs, one blocked kick, and one defensive touchdown.

Peppers was voted to his fifth Pro Bowl and earned Second-Team All Pro honors. On February 22, 2010, Adam Schefter reported that the Panthers would not place the franchise tag on Peppers, leaving him an unrestricted free agent, free to pursue a contract with another team.

2010 season
On March 5, 2010, the Chicago Bears signed Peppers to a six-year contract worth $91.5 million, with $42 million guaranteed in the first three years. Peppers made an immediate impact in Week 1 against the Detroit Lions by sacking quarterback Matthew Stafford and forcing a fumble with 29 seconds to go in the first half. The hit Peppers put on Stafford knocked him out for the remainder of the game.

In Week 3 against the Green Bay Packers, Peppers recorded just two tackles, but was a thorn in the side of the Packers offensive line and Quarterback Aaron Rodgers all game long, forcing multiple false start and holding penalties, and hurrying Rodgers in the pocket all game long. Peppers blocked a field goal that ultimately proved to be the difference in the game as the Bears went on to defeat the Packers by three points by a score of 20–17.

In Week 5, Peppers went back to his home state to play against his former team, the Carolina Panthers, a game in which he and the Bears won by a score of 23–6. His biggest play of the game was when he tipped a Jimmy Clausen pass and proceeded to intercept it, by diving underneath the ball, after the play, Peppers proceeded to hush the booing crowd by raising his index finger to his lips. Peppers finished the game with four tackles, one interception, and one pass defensed.

In Week 11 against the Miami Dolphins, Peppers recorded his first three-sack performance as a member of the Chicago Bears, he finished the game with six tackles, three sacks, and one pass deflection that was intercepted. He earned his fourth career NFC Defensive Player of the Week Award. Peppers won the NFC Defensive Player of the Month Award for November 2010 making it the third time in his career he earned the award.

Peppers finished the season with 43 solo tackles, 11 assisted tackles, eight sacks, three forced fumbles, two interceptions, nine passes defensed, five stuffs, and one blocked kick. His impact was most felt with regards to putting pressure on opposing quarterbacks, redirecting running plays, or assisting on the tackle. Julius was voted to his sixth Pro Bowl and was named to his third, First-Team All Pro team. Peppers finished fourth in voting for the NFL's 2010 AP Defensive Player of the Year Award, which was won by Pittsburgh Steelers safety Troy Polamalu.

In Peppers first year as a Bear, he helped them make the playoffs for the first time since the 2006 season, and helped the Bears secure a victory over the Seattle Seahawks in the divisional round by a score of 35–24. Peppers and the Bears came within one game of reaching the Super Bowl, but ultimately lost to the Green Bay Packers in the NFC championship game 21–14.

In his 2010 All-Pro Team column, sportswriter Peter King wrote:

"Though Peppers had but eight sacks this year, he had a huge impact on a defense that went from 21st in the league in points allowed in 2009 to fourth this year; from 4.3 yards per rush last year to 3.7 this year; from 29 touchdown passes surrendered last year to 14 this year. He pushes the pocket. He buzzes around the quarterback. He makes other guys – Israel Idonije, Tommie Harris – better. There's no question the return of Brian Urlacher at the pivot point of the defense has been a significant addition, but Peppers has been the most important reason the Bears have become the Monsters of the Midway again, and that's why he's my defensive player of the year. He's the John Stockton of the Bears defense, the guy who makes everyone around him better.'"

Peppers was ranked tenth by his fellow players on the NFL Top 100 Players of 2011.

2011 season
Peppers improved on his 2010 season in 2011 starting all 16 games and leading the Bears defense with 11 sacks despite facing constant double teams, and playing much of the season with a sprained MCL in his left knee that he injured in Week 5 against the Detroit Lions. Peppers recorded 33 solo tackles, four assisted tackles, 11 sacks, three forced fumbles, two fumble recoveries, four passes defensed, six stuffs, and two blocked kicks. Peppers was awarded his fourth career NFC Defensive player of the month award for November as he collected six tackles, four sacks, and three pass breakups. In Week 17 facing the Vikings, Peppers was awarded a half-sack by the league, that he originally split with fellow Bears defensive lineman Matt Toeaina, giving him his 100th career sack making him the twenty eighth player in NFL history to achieve that milestone. For his efforts Peppers was elected to the Pro Bowl for the seventh time. He was ranked 26th by his fellow players on the NFL Top 100 Players of 2012.

2012 season
During the 2012 season, Peppers played with plantar fasciitis, though he was able to record 11.5 sacks on the season, becoming the first Bears player to record ten sacks or more in back-to-back years since Rosevelt Colvin, and the first Bear to record at least 11 sacks in two consecutive seasons since Richard Dent. Peppers recovered a career-high four fumbles, which tied for second in the NFL.

In Week 16, in a 28–13 win against the Arizona Cardinals, Peppers recorded five tackles, three sacks, one stuff, one forced fumble, and one pass defensed making it the ninth time in his career that he had recorded at least three sacks in a game, for his efforts Peppers earned his fifth career NFC Defensive Player of the Week Award. Peppers finished the season with 32 solo tackles, seven assisted tackles, 11.5 sacks, one forced fumble, four fumble recoveries, two passes defensed, three stuffs, and one blocked kick. He was named to the 2013 Pro Bowl, his fifth consecutive, and eighth of his career, and was selected to the NFL's 2012 All-Pro Second Team. Peppers received the Bears Brian Piccolo Award given annually to the player that best exemplifies the courage, loyalty, teamwork, dedication and sense of humor of the late Bears running back Brian Piccolo.

On June 5, 2013 Profootballtalk.com named Julius Peppers to their Carolina Panthers Mount Rushmore as one of the teams most significant players in franchise history. On July 31, 2013 EA Tiburon revealed that Peppers was named to their "Madden NFL All-25 Team." He was ranked 54th by his fellow players on the NFL Top 100 Players of 2013.

2013 season
During the Chicago Bears 2013 training camp, Peppers said after one of the Bears practices that he felt 25 years old, and that he wanted to win the first Deacon Jones Award, which was to be given to the player that led the league in sacks. In Week 3 of the 2013 NFL season in a game against the Pittsburgh Steelers, Peppers returned a fumble recovery 42 yards for a Bears touchdown with under four minutes remaining in the game to help seal a Bears victory by a score of 40–23. It was the second fumble recovery Peppers had returned for a touchdown in his career, as well as his fourth touchdown scored. In the Bears Week 11 game against the Baltimore Ravens, Peppers recorded a career-high 11 tackles as well as two sacks and two more tackles for loss in helping the Bears defeat the Ravens in overtime by a score of 23–20. Peppers finished the season with 31 solo tackles, 14 assisted tackles, seven sacks, two forced fumbles, one fumble recovery, one interception, three passes defensed, two stuffs, and one defensive touchdown as the Bears finished 8–8 and missed the postseason.

On March 11, 2014, Peppers was released by the Chicago Bears after attempts to trade him were unsuccessful.

2014 season
Peppers signed a three-year deal with the Green Bay Packers on March 15, 2014. The deal was worth $30 million with $8.5 million in first year, and $7.5 million guaranteed.

In Week 3 of the 2014 season, Peppers recorded his first sack as a Green Bay Packer and recorded his 40th career forced fumble and 15th career fumble recovery on the same play. It happened in a losing effort against the Detroit Lions by a score of 19–7. In Week 5, he recorded his tenth career interception and raced across the field and down the sideline 49 yards to score the fifth touchdown of his career. In doing so, Peppers became the first player in NFL history to record at least 100 sacks and 10 interceptions, he recorded three assisted tackles one being for a loss of yards, a pass defensed, and a half-sack in helping the Packers defeat the Minnesota Vikings by a score of 42–10. For his efforts against the Vikings, Peppers was named the NFC defensive player of the week for the sixth time in his career, making him along with Chris Doleman the only two players to win the award with three different teams.

Peppers became the first player since sacks became an official statistic in 1982 to record at least a half-sack and an interception-return touchdown in three different games. Peppers recorded four tackles, two passes defensed, and a sack, forced fumble, and fumble recovery on the same play against Bears quarterback Jay Cutler. The Packers blew out Peppers' former team by a score of 55–14.

In Week 11, Peppers recorded two tackles and his 11th career interception which he returned 52 yards for a touchdown, becoming the first player in NFL history to record at least 100 sacks and four interception-return touchdowns. It was Peppers sixth career touchdown scored including both interceptions and fumble recoveries returned. The Packers defeated the Philadelphia Eagles 53–20.

Peppers finished the season with 29 solo tackles, 15 assisted tackles, seven sacks, four forced fumbles, three fumble recoveries, two interceptions, two defensive touchdowns, and 11 passes defensed. Peppers ranked first among all linebackers and defensive linemen in the NFL with 101 interception return yards. In the Divisional Round against the Dallas Cowboys, Peppers had dominant performance by leading the Packers in tackles on the day with six, sacking Dallas quarterback Tony Romo and forcing a fumble on the third play of the game, then drew a holding penalty, and later forced a fumble of running back DeMarco Murray in the third quarter on a play where Murray seemed to have a clear run to the end zone. The Packers went on to defeat the Cowboys 26–21.

The Packers advanced to play the Seattle Seahawks in the NFC Championship. Peppers recorded five tackles, 1.5 sacks, three quarterback hits, and put much pressure on Seahawks quarterback Russell Wilson throughout the game, but ultimately the Packers lost in overtime by a score of 28–22. He was ranked 71st by his fellow players on the NFL Top 100 Players of 2015.

2015 season
Peppers started the 2015 season off against the Chicago Bears. He recorded six tackles and 1.5 sacks and passed former Kansas City Chiefs great Derrick Thomas for fifteenth most sacks in NFL history, as well as helping the Packers defeat the Bears by a score of 31–23.

In Week 15 against the Oakland Raiders, Peppers recorded four tackles and 2.5 sacks which moved him past Lawrence Taylor into tenth place on the all-time NFL sacks list, giving him 135 career sacks. The Packers beat the Raiders by a score of 30–20.

Peppers finished the season with 25 solo tackles, 12 assisted tackles, 10.5 sacks, and two forced fumbles. He was selected to his ninth career Pro Bowl.

Peppers helped the Packers reach the playoffs and win their Wild Card Round game against the Washington Redskins by a score of 35–18, he had two tackles in the game. In the Divisional Round against the Arizona Cardinals, Peppers recorded one sack, but the Packers lost in overtime 26–20.

2016 season
Before the season started, the top three living NFL sack leaders of all time, Bruce Smith, Kevin Greene, and Chris Doleman all said that Julius Peppers should be a Hall of Famer once he retires.

In Week 13, Peppers sacked quarterback Brock Osweiler, moving into the top five on the NFL's all-time sack list with 142.5, passing Michael Strahan for fifth all-time. Peppers finished the game with five tackles and one sack, helping the Packers defeat the Houston Texans by a score of 21–13. In Week 15 against his former team the Chicago Bears, Peppers recorded four tackles, a sack, a forced fumble, and a fumble recovery on the first play of the second half to help the Packers win by a score of 30–27.

Peppers finished the season with 15 solo tackles, eight assisted tackles, 7.5 sacks, two forced fumbles, one fumble recovery, and three passes defensed.

In the NFC Wild Card Round against the New York Giants, Peppers sacked Giants quarterback Eli Manning in the first half on a third down play to force a Giants punt. Peppers ended another Giants drive on third down when he batted a pass that was nearly intercepted, and another on a later play by hitting Eli Manning just as he released the pass, causing an incompletion. Peppers finished the game with three tackles, one sack, two quarterback hits, and two passes defended helping the Packers beat the Giants by a score of 38–13 and advance to the Divisional Round against the Dallas Cowboys. Peppers helped beat the Cowboys the following week 34–31, but the Packers lost a week later to the Atlanta Falcons in the NFC Championship by a score of 44–21.

2017 season
On March 10, 2017, Peppers signed a one-year contract to return to the Panthers. Peppers stated that while he was away from his home state of North Carolina and his home state team, and team that drafted him, the Carolina Panthers, he realized how much he missed the place saying "home is where the heart is." He said he always wanted to return to the Panthers and repair the relationships with the team and fans and give them another chance to see him wear the Panthers uniform once again. Peppers was given the jersey #90, which was the same number he wore for the first eight years of his career while playing for the Carolina Panthers.

In the Panthers' regular season opener, Peppers recorded a half sack and two quarterback hits, helping the Panthers beat the San Francisco 49ers by a score of 23–3 in his first game back with the team. In week 2 and in his homecoming game in Charlotte, North Carolina at Bank of America Stadium, Peppers recorded six tackles and two sacks as the Panthers defeated the Buffalo Bills by a score of 9–3. After the game, Peppers went on to say that this defense is the best he's ever been a part of.

In week 4, Peppers helped the Panthers defeat the New England Patriots by a score of 33–30. Peppers recorded four tackles, two sacks, three quarterback hits as he helped to disrupt Patriots quarterback Tom Brady and the New England offense throughout the game, despite playing through a right shoulder injury of his own that he had in a brace. For his efforts, Peppers was named the NFC Defensive Player of the Week for the seventh time in his career. In Week 5, Peppers recorded a sack and had a big fourth down tackle for a four-yard loss which resulted in a turnover on downs in a game where the Panthers defeated the Detroit Lions by a score of 27–24. In Week 6 against the Philadelphia Eagles, Peppers recorded his 150th career sack, making him the fifth player in NFL history to achieve that milestone. However, the Panthers lost 28–23. In Week 8 win against the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, Peppers recorded his 151st sack, moving him past Chris Doleman for fourth most all-time. The sack gave Peppers 7.5 sacks for the season, tying him with Bruce Smith for the most seasons with at least seven sacks (15). In Week 15 against the Green Bay Packers, Peppers recorded a half sack late in the fourth quarter on a fourth down play against quarterback Aaron Rodgers, helping the Panthers ultimately win 31–24. The half sack gave Peppers ten sacks on the season and ten total seasons with double digit sacks, becoming only the fourth player in NFL history to achieve that milestone. Peppers became only the third player in NFL history at age 37 or older to record at least 10 sacks in a season.

Peppers finished the season with 21 solo tackles, 12 assisted tackles, 11 sacks, two forced fumbles, and two fumble recoveries.

Peppers helped the Panthers make the playoffs, and they faced off against the New Orleans Saints in the Wild Card Round. Peppers recorded two tackles in the game including a tackle for loss on third down with 2:27 remaining in the fourth quarter. The Saints went for it on fourth down and Saints' quarterback Drew Brees threw an interception thereby giving the Panthers offense one more chance to win the game, but the Panthers offense was unable to score, and the Panthers lost 31–26.

2018 season
On March 14, 2018, Peppers signed a one-year contract extension with the Panthers.

In week 6 against the Washington Redskins, Peppers recorded a sack and a forced fumble which gave him 50 forced fumbles for his career. Peppers is only the second player in NFL history to record at least 50 forced fumbles, the first being Robert Mathis. The Panthers lost the game though 17–23. In week 7 against the Philadelphia Eagles, Peppers recorded a sack and forced fumble on fourth down late in the fourth quarter to seal the victory for the Panthers by a score of 21–17. In week 17 against the New Orleans Saints, in what was his final NFL game, Peppers recorded four solo tackles, one sack, two tackles for loss, and one pass defensed as he looked to be all over the field in helping to defeat the Saints by a score of 33–14.

Peppers finished the season with 14 solo tackles, eight assisted tackles, five sacks, two forced fumbles, one fumble recovery, and six passes defensed.

After a 17-year career in the NFL, Peppers announced his retirement on February 1, 2019. Peppers finished his legendary NFL career with 716 total tackles and 159.5 sacks (fourth most all-time – trailing only Bruce Smith (200), Reggie White (198) and Kevin Greene (160). He sacked 77 different quarterbacks, tied with Hall of Famer Reggie White for the most since sacks became official in 1982. Peppers recorded at least one sack against 30 of the NFL’s 32 franchises. The exceptions were the Bengals (three games against) and the Colts (four games against). He had 51 forced fumbles (second most all-time) 21 fumble recoveries, 11 interceptions, 82 passes defensed, six defensive touchdowns scored (four interceptions returned, and two fumble recoveries), 60 stuffs, and 13 blocked kicks (second most all-time). He played in 266 of a possible 272 games in his career – the sixth most games played by a defensive player in NFL history.

Post-playing career
On May 8, 2019, Peppers was hired as a special assistant of business operations with the Carolina Panthers. He and wide receiver Muhsin Muhammad were inducted into the Panthers' Hall of Honor on October 29, 2023.

On February 8, 2024, Peppers was selected to be inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame, in his first year of eligibility.

NFL awards and honors

 * NFL Rookie of the Month (October 2002)
 * 2002 NFL Defensive Rookie of the Year
 * Pro Football Weekly All-Rookie Team (2002)
 * 2004 NFC Defensive Player of the Year
 * 2004 NFL Alumni Defensive Lineman of the Year
 * 2013 Brian Piccolo Award
 * 2018 Panthers' Ed Block Courage Award
 * NFL 2000s All-Decade Team
 * NFL 2010s All-Decade Team
 * Pro-Football-Reference All 2000s Team
 * 100 Sacks Club
 * 2004, 2005, 2006, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2015 NFC Pro Bowl
 * 2004, 2006, 2010 All-Pro First Team
 * 2008, 2009, 2012 All-Pro Second Team
 * 7× NFC Defensive Player of the Week
 * 5× NFC Defensive Player of the Month (November 2004, October 2006, November 2008, November 2010, November 2011)
 * Carolina Panthers Hall of Honor (2023)
 * Pro Football Hall of Fame (2024)

Panthers franchise records

 * Most career sacks: (97)
 * Most career forced fumbles: (34)

NFL records and accomplishments

 * Fourth most sacks in NFL history (since 1982): 159.5
 * Tied for third most double digit sack seasons in NFL history: 10
 * Tied for fifth most games with at least three sacks: 9
 * Tied for fifth most multiple sack games in NFL history: 37
 * Second most forced fumbles in NFL history: 52
 * Second most interceptions by a defensive lineman in NFL history: 9
 * 11 career interceptions including time played as a linebacker
 * Most interception return yards by a defensive lineman in NFL history: 192 yds
 * 293 career interception return yards including time played as a linebacker
 * Most interception return yards in a single season by a defensive lineman in NFL history: 143 yds
 * Most interception return yards in a single game by a defensive lineman in NFL history: 97 yds
 * Longest interception return by a defensive lineman in NFL history: 97 yds
 * Most combined interception and fumble return yards by a defensive lineman in a single season since NFL merger in 1970: 203 yds
 * Tied for second most interceptions returned for a touchdown by a defensive lineman in NFL history: 2
 * Four career interceptions returned for a touchdown including time played as a linebacker
 * Second most passes defensed by a defensive lineman in NFL history: 68
 * 82 career passes defensed including time played as a linebacker
 * Second most blocked kicks in NFL history: 13
 * Only player in NFL history to record at least 100 sacks and 10 interceptions
 * Only player in NFL history with 100-plus sacks and four interceptions returned for touchdowns
 * Only player in NFL history to record at least 150 sacks and 10 interceptions
 * Peppers has three career games with at least a half-sack and an interception-return touchdown, the most such games in the NFL since the sack became an official statistic in 1982

Personal life
In February 2009, Peppers donated $500,000 to a scholarship program that supports black students at his alma mater of North Carolina. His donation went to the Light on the Hill Society Scholarship, a tribute to UNC's earliest black graduates which helps alumni and friends support black freshmen who show the potential for academic excellence at UNC and after they graduate.

title: Julius Peppers


text: User talk:205.197.148.2

title: User talk:205.197.148.2


text:
Kentucky River Authority

The Kentucky River Authority is an agency of the Commonwealth of Kentucky. Its major purpose is to operate and maintain a set of locks and dams along the course of the Kentucky River, which were originally built by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. As of May 2018, Locks 5 through 14 are operated by the Authority, while Locks 1 through 4 are in the process of being deeded over to it. The Authority was established in 1986.

This system makes the Kentucky River navigable throughout its entire length. However, it is not available for efficient use by many of the modern barge tows, as the locks are relatively small and the channel is maintained to only a six-foot draft rather than the more typical nine-foot draft (the latter is the standard used on most major river systems in the U.S.). The Authority also works to prevent water pollution as much as is practicable along the Kentucky River Basin, in large measure because the stream is the source of the drinking water for approximately one-sixth of all Kentucky residents. The Authority's responsibility for water quality was added to its mission in 1988 after a serious and prolonged drought brought issues of water quality and availability to the fore. In fact, the system is now operated more for the purpose of maintaining a secure supply of drinkable water for Lexington and other communities than it is to maximize navigation.

title: Kentucky River Authority


text:
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA; United States Public Law 104-113) was signed into law March 7, 1996. The Act amended several existing acts and mandated new directions for federal agencies with the purpose of:

 * bringing technology and industrial innovation to market more quickly
 * encouraging cooperative research and development between business and the federal government by providing access to federal laboratories
 * making it easier for businesses to obtain exclusive licenses to technology and inventions that result from cooperative research with the federal government

The Act made a direct impact on the development of new industrial and technology standards by requiring that all Federal agencies use cooperatively developed standards, particularly those developed by standards developing organizations.


text:
Edinburgh Review

The Edinburgh Review is the title of four distinct intellectual and cultural magazines. The best known, longest-lasting, and most influential of the four was the third, which was published regularly from 1802 to 1929.

Edinburgh Review, 1755–1756
The first Edinburgh Review was a short-lived venture initiated in 1755 by the Select Society, a group of Scottish men of letters concerned with the Enlightenment goals of social and intellectual improvement. According to the preface of the inaugural issue, the journal's purpose was to "demonstrate 'the progressive state of learning in this country' and thereby to incite Scots 'to a more eager pursuit of learning, to distinguish themselves, and to do honour to their country.'" As a means to these ends, it would "give a full account of all books published in Scotland within the compass of half a year; and ... take some notice of such books published elsewhere, as are most read in this country, or seem to have any title to draw the public attention." Among the most notable of the foreign publications it observed was Jean-Jacques Rousseau's Discourse on Inequality, which Adam Smith reviewed in the journal's second and final issue, published in March 1756. Its premature folding was due in large part to the partisan attacks the Moderate editors received from their opponents in the Church of Scotland, the Popular Party.

Edinburgh Magazine and Review, 1773–1776
A short-lived magazine with similar purposes, Edinburgh Magazine and Review, was published monthly between 1773 and 1776.

Edinburgh Review, 1802–1929
The third Edinburgh Review became one of the most influential British magazines of the 19th century. It promoted Romanticism and Whig politics. (It was also, however, notoriously critical of some major Romantic poetry.)

Started on 10 October 1802 by Francis Jeffrey, Sydney Smith, Henry Brougham, and Francis Horner, it was published by Archibald Constable in quarterly issues until 1929. It began as a literary and political review. Under its first permanent editor, Francis Jeffrey (the first issue was edited by Sydney Smith), it was a strong supporter of the Whig party and liberal politics, and regularly called for political reform. Its main rival was the Quarterly Review which supported the Tories. The magazine was also noted for its attacks on the Lake Poets, particularly William Wordsworth.

It was owned at one point by John Stewart, whose wife Louisa Hooper Stewart (1818–1918) was an early advocate of women's suffrage, having been educated at the Quaker school of Newington Academy for Girls.

It took its Latin motto judex damnatur cum nocens absolvitur ("the judge is condemned when the guilty is acquitted") from Publilius Syrus.

The magazine ceased publication in 1929.

Notable contributors to the third Edinburgh Review
• Thomas Arnold

• Richard Harris Barham

• Henry Brougham

• Thomas Brown

• Thomas Carlyle

• Ugo Foscolo

• Henry Hallam

• William Hamilton

• Abraham Hayward

• William Hazlitt

• Felicia Hemans

• Francis Horner

• Leigh Hunt

• Francis Jeffrey

• George Cornewall Lewis

• Thomas Babington Macaulay

• Sir James Mackintosh

• John Ramsay McCulloch

• John Stuart Mill

• Robert Montgomery

• John Playfair

• Henry Reeve

• Henry Enfield Roscoe

• Bertrand Russell

• Charles William Russell

• Sir Walter Scott

• Sismondi

• Sydney Smith

• Herbert Spencer

• Arthur Penrhyn Stanley

New Edinburgh Review (1969–1984) and Edinburgh Review (1984–2014)
The Scottish cultural magazine New Edinburgh Review was founded in 1969. It was published by Edinburgh University Student Publications Board (EUSPB). The most famous issues of the New Edinburgh Review were the 1974 issues, supervised by C.K. Maisels, that discussed the philosophy of Antonio Gramsci. James Campbell edited fifteen issues of the magazine between 1978 and 1982. Other editors included David Cubitt, Julian Pollock, Brian Torode, Henry Drucker and Owen Dudley Edwards. Notable contributors included:

• Neal Ascherson

• James Baldwin

• Angus Calder

• Jenni Calder

• Stewart Conn

• Iain Crichton Smith

• William Burroughs

• David Daiches

• Hamish Henderson

• George Mackay Brown

• John P. Mackintosh

• Allan Massie

• Naomi Mitchison

• Edwin Morgan

• Tom Nairn

In 1984 (from the combined issue 67/68) the magazine adopted the title Edinburgh Review, along with the motto To gather all the rays of culture into one. From 2007 to 2012 it was part of the Eurozine network. Editors of Edinburgh Review included Murdo Macdonald, Peter Kravitz, Robert Alan Jamieson, Gavin Wallace, Sophy Dale and Frank Kuppner. Notable contributors included:

• John Burnside

• Ron Butlin

• Alec Finlay

• Janice Galloway

• Alasdair Gray

• Tom Hubbard

• Jackie Kay

• Tom Leonard

• Alastair McIntosh

• Duncan Macmillan

• Janet Paisley

• Alan Spence

• Alan Warner

• Kenneth White

title: Edinburgh Review


text:
Category:Lamborghini vehicles

This category is for automobiles sold under the Lamborghini marque.

title: Category:Lamborghini vehicles


text:
Representation of a Lie superalgebra

In the mathematical field of representation theory, a representation of a Lie superalgebra is an action of Lie superalgebra L on a Z2-graded vector space V, such that if A and B are any two pure elements of L and X and Y are any two pure elements of V, then

 * $$(c_1 A+c_2 B)\cdot X=c_1 A\cdot X + c_2 B\cdot X$$

 * $$A\cdot (c_1 X + c_2 Y)=c_1 A\cdot X + c_2 A\cdot Y$$

 * $$(-1)^{A\cdot X}=(-1)^A(-1)^X$$

 * $$[A,B]\cdot X=A\cdot (B\cdot X)-(-1)^{AB}B\cdot (A\cdot X).$$

Equivalently, a representation of L is a Z2-graded representation of the universal enveloping algebra of L which respects the third equation above.

Unitary representation of a star Lie superalgebra
A * Lie superalgebra is a complex Lie superalgebra equipped with an involutive antilinear map * such that * respects the grading and

 * [a,b]*=[b*,a*].

A unitary representation of such a Lie algebra is a Z2 graded Hilbert space which is a representation of a Lie superalgebra as above together with the requirement that self-adjoint elements of the Lie superalgebra are represented by Hermitian transformations.

This is a major concept in the study of supersymmetry together with representation of a Lie superalgebra on an algebra. Say A is an *-algebra representation of the Lie superalgebra (together with the additional requirement that * respects the grading and L[a]*=-(-1)LaL*[a*]) and H is the unitary rep and also, H is a unitary representation of A.

These three reps are all compatible if for pure elements a in A, |ψ> in H and L in the Lie superalgebra,

 * L[a|ψ>)]=(L[a])|ψ>+(-1)Laa(L[|ψ>]).

Sometimes, the Lie superalgebra is embedded within A in the sense that there is a homomorphism from the universal enveloping algebra of the Lie superalgebra to A. In that case, the equation above reduces to

 * L[a]=La-(-1)LaaL.

This approach avoids working directly with a Lie supergroup, and hence avoids the use of auxiliary Grassmann numbers.

title: Representation of a Lie superalgebra


text:
John Andrew Davidson

John Andrew Davidson (August 19, 1852 – November 14, 1903) was a Manitoba politician. He was briefly the leader of Manitoba's Conservative parliamentary caucus in 1894, and later served as a cabinet minister in the governments of Hugh John Macdonald and Rodmond Roblin.

Biography
Davidson was born in Thamesford, Canada West (now Ontario). He moved to Manitoba in 1871, and became a mill owner and general merchant, also serving on the Protestant school board.

Manitoba's boundaries were expanded in 1881, and Davidson was elected to the provincial legislature in a by-election as the first member for Dauphin. A Liberal, he defeated his sole opponent, Peter St. Clair McGregor, 148 votes to 17.

Party affiliations were fluid in Manitoba in this period, and by the general election of 1883 Davidson was identifying himself as a Liberal-Conservative, and a supporter of Premier John Norquay. He was re-elected in Dauphin without opposition.

Following redistribution, Davidson campaigned in the Beautiful Plains constituency for the provincial election of 1886. The Liberals saw their support rise in this campaign, and Davidson (now a Conservative) lost to Liberal John Crawford by thirty votes. Crawford again defeated Davidson in the 1888 election, this time by twenty-four votes.

Provincial support for the Conservatives recovered slightly in the 1892 election, and Davidson defeated Crawford by sixteen votes in their third encounter. The opposition caucus to which he belonged initially chose William Alexander Macdonald as its leader. When Macdonald's constituency election was overturned in 1893, Davidson was chosen in his place. He made his first speech as leader of the opposition in January 1894. Davidson was a moderate figure, whose interventions were respected by the province's Liberal leadership.

He did not serve as opposition leader for long. His constituency victory was also overturned on April 17, 1894, and he was subsequently defeated by John Forsyth of the Patrons of Industry in a by-election. After his loss, the leadership of the opposition seems to have fallen to James Fisher, an Independent MLA. Davidson again lost to a Patrons of Industry candidate in the 1896 election.

Though the Conservatives returned to government in the 1899 election, Davidson was once again defeated in Beautiful Plains, losing to Liberal Robert Ennis by ninety votes. He was, nonetheless, appointed to cabinet by Premier Hugh John Macdonald in January 1900, serving as Provincial Treasurer, Minister of Agriculture, and Provincial Lands Commissioner. Ennis was persuaded to resign his seat the following month, and Crawford was returned to the legislature in a by-election.

Rodmond Roblin took the Agriculture portfolio for himself on becoming Premier in late 1900, but kept Davidson in his other two positions. Within a year, Davidson had eliminated the debt accumulated during the previous administration of Thomas Greenway.

Davidson was re-elected in the 1903 election, but died shortly after the election.

title: John Andrew Davidson