Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:06, 17 November 2017

This article was nominated for deletion on 5 September 2017. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

Template:SCW&ISIL sanctions

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Crime and Criminal Biography Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Crime and Criminal Biography: Terrorism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Terrorism task force (assessed as High-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Islam: Islam and Controversy Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Islam and Controversy task force. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Europe High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Misplaced Pages.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that a map or maps be included in this article to improve its quality.

Current/recent consensuses: Only add terrorist attacks described as such by official sources (link)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Islamic terrorism in Europe article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 6 sections are present.

How long will it be before we change the title to something like 2014-2019? When does 'present' end?

State opinions below. Factsoverfeelings (talk) 23:46, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

You must know that previous Moslem invasions of Europe lasted many years (the invasion of Iberia, nearly eight centuries; and the Turks still occupy formerly Western lands first taken a millennium ago), so "to present" is a wiser choice than "to 2019" (until all has been quiescent for a few decades, at least). Perhaps, "Facts", your question simply arises from exasperation by atavistic violence that from a civilised perspective (Western or perhaps even some Moslem) seems as needless as it is terrible. Firstorm (talk) 08:30, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

RfC on scope

• For the initial question with three clear options, there was no support for option 3, and no consensus between the options 1 and 2. With just three commenters this should not be regarded as binding though.
• Regarding what counts as "Islamic", "Islamic fundamentalism", "Islamist" and "Islamism" all received equal numerical support but the latter also got an oppose from a commenter supporting "Islamist". There was also a suggestion to use the same definition as at List of Islamic terrorist attacks, which is "Terror attacks by Islamist extremists to further a perceived Islamist religious or political cause have occurred globally.". Based on this I find a weak consensus for Islamist' as the key descriptive word but no consensus for a specific phrasing.
• What is a terror attack? There was a clear consensus for "official sources call it terror". There was no discussion of what is an "official source".
• What counts as Europe? There was no consensus regarding Turkey with equally strong support for all three possible options, weak consensus to include European Russia, Ceuta and Melilla. and no consensus about anywhere else.
• Regarding the article title, there is consensus for the current title until "the number of attacks falls back to previous levels, at which point the implication is that "present" will be changed to the last year that saw increased attacks. Thryduulf (talk) 20:57, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What should the scope of this article be? See below for possible alternatives. TompaDompa (talk) 02:43, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

This article lacks a clear and specific scope. The first paragraph in the WP:LEAD (version as of my writing this) gives a few different possibilities – (1) a period of increased terrorist activity, (2) part of the spillover of the Syrian Civil War, (3) linked to the rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, or (4) linked to the European migrant crisis. We need to pick one of those as the scope, and stick to it. I don't believe anyone thinks (4) is a good option, but the other three are all possible. The main difference is what acts of terrorism would be included based on the perpetrators' allegiance:

• Option (1)—a period of increased terrorist activity—would include unaffiliated terrorists, Al-Qaeda, ISIL, the Taliban, Hezbollah, and others.
• Option (2)—part of the spillover of the Syrian Civil War—would include Hezbollah, ISIL, and Al-Qaeda, but not unaffiliated terrorists or the Taliban.
• Option (3)—linked to the rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant—would only include ISIL.

I want to clarify: I'm not looking to determine what the scope is (because right now it's a mess), but establish WP:CONSENSUS as to what it should be. In other words, don't argue along the lines of "The title is X, and therefore this is about...". TompaDompa (talk) 00:42, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• I prefer Option (1). ISIL has lead to a rise of popularity for Jihad in general. There is not always a visible link to ISIL. It is no coincidence that the number of ISIL unaffiliated terror attacks (lone wolfs) also increased in the last years compared to the 90s and 2000s. Arcadius Romanus (talk) 01:34, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - editors cannot decide the topic, but rather the sources, and sources stand for Jihadist terror (motivated by Sunni extremism). I'm familiar with Al-Qaeda and ISIL terror activity in this regard and sympathizers (lone wolves), but we should not link this with Hezbollah and Taliban, especially since those are pretty inactive in Europe recently. So it is Option (2), but excluding Hezbollah which is a Shi'ite terror group with different ambitions and enemy with both Al-Qaeda and ISIL.GreyShark (dibra) 19:01, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree about sources deciding, but different sources have different scopes as well. While I have yet to see any that don't include ISIL in their scope, the inclusion of al-Qaeda is not universal. Hence, we do have to decide as editors which sources' scope to follow, even though—as you rightly point out—we cannot pick a scope that doesn't reflect any of the sources. See also my comment below. TompaDompa (talk) 13:45, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

• I do agree with GreyShark 's comment. Wykx (talk) 21:51, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

All in all, I see at least four issues:

1. Islamic: Similar to the above, what do the terrorists need to be in order for their acts to qualify for this article – Muslims, or Islamists, or Salafi jihadists, or members of ISIL, or something else?
2. terrorism: As noted above, the list currently includes events that are not terrorism, though they are violent crimes. I'll quote WP:LISTCRITERIA: In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed (for example, lists of unusual things or terrorist incidents), it is especially important that inclusion be based on reliable sources given with inline citations for each item. I don't think it has escaped anybody's notice that editors disagreeing about whether something should be included or not is a regular occurrence on this article.
3. in Europe: There has been some discussion about whether Turkey should be included. At the moment, it seems like the compromise is to include Istanbul, but exclude Anatolia. At any rate, we need to decide something concrete.
4. (2014–present): In 20 years' time, do we want this to read "(during the Syrian Civil War)" or "(since 2014)"?

In order to enforce the agreed-upon scope, clear and specific inclusion criteria (and possibly also exclusion critera) would be necessary, though we obviously have to get the scope established first. TompaDompa (talk) 00:42, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

• comment:

1. Islamic: If the attack was related to Islamic Fundamentalism.
2. Terror: If official sources call it an act of terror or terror attack. This would not include if a Muslims kills his wife over alimony. If it involves money, drugs or people close the person it is an ordinary violent crime.
3. Europe: I am against adding Turkey. Just adding Istanbul is confusing. We should only add countries where the majority of people lives on the European continent.
4. (2014–present): Till the number of attacks falls back to previous levels. Arcadius Romanus (talk) 01:34, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

• comment:

1. Islamic: If the attack was Islamism-related.
2. Terror: If official sources call it an act of terror or terror attack. This would not include if a Muslims kills his wife over alimony. If it involves money, drugs or people close the person it is an ordinary violent crime.
3. Europe: Turkey is not in Europe (though Ceuta and Melilla are.)
4. (2014–present): Till the number of attacks falls back to previous levels.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:30, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

• comment:

1. Islamic: If the attack was carried out inn the name of Islam.
2. Terror: If official sources call it an act of terror or terror attack, and no other crimes.
3. Europe: Attacks that occur in Europe.
4. (2014–present): No, a bad idea. This is too open ended. Why is 2014 the start point?Slatersteven (talk) 15:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

• comment:

1. Islamic: Yes, if the attack was Islamism-related.
2. Terror: If official sources call it an act of terror or terror attack. This would not include if a Muslims kills his wife over alimony. If it involves money, drugs or people close the person it is an ordinary violent crime.
3. Europe: All European territory (Istanbul is city in Europe) + overseas territories of Western European countries (French Guiana, Greenland, Falklands, Ceuta and etc if any Islamist attack will be occured there) and Asian part of Russia (Siberia, Russian Far East and etc if any Islamist attack will be occured there, at the moment, one terrorist plot on Russian Far East was prevented by the FSB).
4. (2014–present): I prefer "during the Arab Winter", because it's more better shows that it's not just Islamist terrorism like French 1990's or Russian 2000's , it's spillover of instability in the Middle East. TonyaJaneMelbourne (talk) 20:30, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Present situation is that ANY tie, regardless of how tenuous, to Islam and any mention of the possibility of an event being 'terrorist' appeard to be the present criteria for inclusion, all presented without qualification or context. There is also a real problem with creditting ISIS, since they claim responsibility for nearly every event although investigators are able to find no, or very speculative connections even among 'lone wolves'. Pincrete (talk) 12:29, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Islamist. Not Islamic or "Islamism-related". There's an important distinction. Bastun 21:38, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

With respect, this is window dressing IMO. Neither sources nor readers make much distinction between '-ic terrorism' and '-ism-related terrorism', and people who are unable/unwilling to understand that '-ic terrorism' is not the same as 'Islam' are unlikely to change their PoV as a result of a slightly modified adjective. The much bigger problem here is poor sources claiming that unnamed witnesses, distinctly heard 'God is great' being yelled, so it must be terrorism and must be related to Islam, without any attempt at qualification, Yeah? Also other problems of that kind, lack of 'follow through' (was anyone prosecuted, or did the police decide there was 'no case'?), speculation stated as fact etc. Pincrete (talk) 10:25, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

While I agree that all of those are valid issues that should be addressed, nothing prevents us addressing them while also being accurate with regard to terminology; and doing so would also keep this article in line with List of Islamist terrorist attacks. Just because sources are careless doesn't mean Misplaced Pages should be. Bastun 13:38, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

• Comments Many editors above are using the terms 'terror' or 'terror attack'. In my experience these are used by news sources when they don't know what to say, it implies 'terrorism' without having the courage to say it. We should not go down that road IMO, 'terrorism' is fairly precise, (acts of violence against people or property done for political motives), we should stick to that. I believe we should not include Turkey, it is substantially geographically and politically outside Europe. The article should be limited to 'Islamic/ism' terrorism, but even more important than that restriction IMO are the criteria for deciding what is/isn't 'Islamic terrorism'. The history of this article is individual editors/poor sources deciding whether something is/isn't, with little attempt at context (ie why/who thinks this is 'Islamic'. Pincrete (talk) 17:25, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

• Comments Re inclusion criteria, why reinvent the wheel. List of Islamist terrorist attacks has clear inclusion criteria - an incident must be identified as being both Islamist in nature and a terrorist attack, in the same reliable source. That twin requirement cuts down hugely on WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:OR. The list in this article, at present, is a collection of Islamist terrorist attacks and other incidents where we - and investigators, magistrates, courts and media - have no idea of the motive for the attack, where it's even referenced. (And ISIL/ISIS/Daesh claiming responsibility isn't sufficient). In the more discursive part of the article, we should also outline the comparatively low level of terrorism-related incidents and deaths in the last decade compared to earlier years. Bastun 19:16, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Counting Terror Deaths: More or Less? BBC R4 broadcast August 2016 Is 2016 an unusually deadly year for terrorism? In a joint investigation with BBC Newsbeat and BBC Monitoring, we've analysed nearly 25,000 news articles to assess whether 2016 so far has been a unusually deadly year for terrorism. It certainly feels like it. But what do the numbers say? We estimate that, between January and July this year, 892 people died in terrorist attacks in Europe - making it the most deadly first seven months of a year since 1994. But the vast majority of those deaths have been in Turkey. The number for Western Europe is 143, which is lower than many years in the 1970s. The 2015-16 figures for France were exceptionally high of course, but overall it is simply a myth that either attacks or deaths have been high or increasing in W.Europe since 2014, as anyone living in UK, NI or IRep probably knew already. The 'who' and 'how' and 'why' and 'where' may have changed, the 'danger level' has not. Pincrete (talk) 08:15, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

• comment:

1. Islamic: Clearly motivated by Islamic Fundamentalism, though i would prefer a more precise term Salafi Jihadism for this case.
2. Terror: Include cases, which are proven or suspected as terror acts; For this matter attacks on security forces in public places is also terror, as it aims to terrorize the population.
3. Europe: EU+UK, Balkans, Possibly Russia , but certainly excluding Turkey (which has Turkey-ISIL conflict to deal with it).
4. (2014–present): Beginning 2014 (some sources say 2015) and until the number of attacks falls back to previous levels.GreyShark (dibra) 18:57, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

• comment:

1. Islamic: I prefer a broader range: motivated by strong anti-Western feelings that are rife in countries where Islam is the dominant religion. So not necessarily a clear link to IS or mentioning "in the name of Islam" should have been established. Also because in some cases this can not be proven (for example because of death of the terrorists). This also fits the " related to the migrants crisis" criteria in sentence one. Alternatively, a list of terrorist attacks by migrants from Islamic countries (or their offspring) against Western societies could be made, including both clear Islam motivated attacks as well as attack where this is less or not clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.217.126.119 (talk) 14:39, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Regarding sources

This should hopefully go without saying, but the WP:Reliable sources on the scope are not the news media, but agencies involved in counterterrorism/intelligence (both national and supranational, e.g. MI5 and Interpol, respectively) and academia (e.g. the UCDP). In other words, when it comes to a pattern in terrorism activity, we leave ascertaining the nature of that pattern to those sources—not to the news media.

With that in mind, I looked into what scopes some such sources have. Some of these are already cited in the article.

• Academic: ISIL-related plots and attacks in the West (specified as Western Europe, North America, and Australia/New Zealand) since 2011 (though the earliest such attack they identified was in September 2012).
• Academic: The UCDP lists nothing remotely similar to this article's current scope, or any of the suggested ones. They have an IS - Civilians entry including several of the attacks on our list, but that one starts in 2004 and is not limited to Europe.
• Academic: Jihadist terrorism in the West in general and France in particular, starting in 2005 (though in particular since 2015).
• Agency: Europol releases yearly reports on all terrorist activity (i.e. failed, foiled, and completed attacks) in the European Union (they are, after all, an EU agency). They list a category of terrorism that has variously been called "Islamist terrorism" (2007–2011 reports, i.e. terrorism 2006–2010), "Religiously inspired terrorism" (2012–2015 reports, i.e. terrorism 2011–2014), and "Jihadist terrorism" (2016–2017 reports, i.e. terrorism 2015–2016). It is worth noting that while their scope is limited to the EU when it comes to statistics (again, Europol is an EU agency), their scope when analysing trends and assessing threats extends beyond the borders of the EU. With regards to this category of terrorism, they have made the observation that terrorist groups have made calls for attacks in the West (specified as: Europe, as well as Australia, Canada and the USA) since at least their 2014 report (i.e. terrorism in 2013), and this carries on through the 2017 report (terrorism in 2016), which goes on to discuss the specific example of the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting.

Considering the above, I make the following observations as to what I believe best reflects the sources:

• Ideologically, the scope should be jihadism. Focus should be especially on ISIL, but not to the exclusion of other actors such as AQAP.
• Geographically, the scope should be "the West". That is to say that unlike the current list, Turkey and Russia should be excluded, and the US and Australia should be included. This is how the sources view and describe the matter in geopolitical terms.
• Temporally, there does not seem to be any even rough consensus as to the start date. The current one – 2014 – seems however to be an arbitrary choice which is not supported by reliable sources.

Feel free to look into further sources like these and see if a clearer picture emerges. TompaDompa (talk) 23:25, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

References

1. Hegghammer, Thomas; Nesser, Petter (2015-07-21). "Assessing the Islamic State's Commitment to Attacking the West". Perspectives on Terrorism. 9 (4). ISSN 2334-3745.
2. "IS - Civilians". ucdp.uu.se. Retrieved 2017-07-02. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
3. Kepel, Gilles (2017-04-24). Terror in France: The Rise of Jihad in the West. Princeton University Press. pp. ix–xii. ISBN 9781400884643.
4. "EU Terrorism Situation & Trend Report (TE-SAT)". Europol. 2007–2017. Retrieved 2017-07-02. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)CS1 maint: date format (link)

Listing in section Counter-terrorism operations

The Counter-terrorism operations sections is wildly unverified as to their notability, wider coverage or general importance as regards to be notable events. Wikipeida is not a news site, and including an long laundry list of events which have a single news source only from the time the event happened, does not qualify an event for inclusion. The criteria for inclusion as listed at events notability, needs to be followed. The specific area of crime notability also needs to be followed. There needs to be a major pruning of this list, as most the contents is just events which happened, which fail in the above mentioned areas. Sport and politics (talk) 12:47, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

All of the events were official counter-terror operations. So highly relevant to this article. Please make a list with events that were crime related raids. --Arcadius Romanus (talk) 23:44, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Codswallop. Simply being a routine police event is not justification enough to include the event. it must meet the notability and sourcing standards of Wikipeida. The burden falls on the includer to show it meets the standards necessary for inclusion. It has been in other discussions pointing out the serious failings of a large number or sources used in this article. Sport and politics (talk) 10:59, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikiepida is not an indiscriminate collection of information or list of events, and simply having a single source does not automatically mean that an event is worth including on this article, verifiability does not automatically mean inclusion on Wikipeida. The information needs multiple independent source all reliably stating the information being asserted, along with the event in and of itself being more than routine news coverage and more than general police activities. Simply stating it has a source, is not enough for inclusion, the actual event must meet notability threshold, criteria, and standards. Some of these events fall far below this standard, and some of the events have no source whatsoever. The burden lies with the restorer or adder, to demonstrate the information meets the inclusion policies and guidelines for Misplaced Pages. Sport and politics (talk) 09:34, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I took a stab at cleaning it up. TompaDompa (talk) 10:26, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Good job. There are still a large number that appear to be entirely non-notable - basically arrests reported, without even knowing if charges were made and/or trials held. These should almost certainly be removed. Bastun 11:54, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree, but I didn't want to remove it all at once in case of backlash. I removed a bunch more. TompaDompa (talk) 14:41, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you it is a sorry state when editors of an article fear a backlash for putting an article in a better position. Please feel free to continue, and remove ALL of the events which have no place on this article. Sport and politics (talk) 20:19, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

List of attacks

Sorting of the list of attacks doesn't work properly. Unfortunately, I don't know how to fix it, could someone do that? Admirał Bum (talk) 21:58, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you can fix it by using {{ntsh|000}} tags. See List of ongoing military conflicts as example.GreyShark (dibra) 12:09, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Do we really need the tables to be sortable? I don't see any reason. It's usually better not to have them sortable if there's no particular reason they should be. TompaDompa (talk) 14:03, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

2017 Turku stabbing

Don't want to overstep 1RR.

2017 Turku stabbing should be removed from the List of attacks section as neither the cited source nor any reliable sources call it Islamic terrorism. It was re-added by an IP editor, saying "Scope of this page is NOT only proven islamic terrorism, it also includes terrorism related to the migrant crisis. This is clearly the case here". While the ongoing Talk:Islamic_terrorism_in_Europe_(2014–present)#RfC on scope notes that the current scope is ambiguous ("a mess"), I'm confident that the scope of this article is NOT any terrorism related to the migrant crisis (it isn't even an option on the table of the RfC). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:38, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I do not agree that the Turku attack should be removed. The first sentence of this page clearly mentions that attacks are included that are "linked to the European Migrant Crisis". The Turku attack was executed by a Moroccan man in an asylum procedure, and thus clearly linked to this migration crisis. I prefer to see the scope of this page broadened to terrorist acts against Western societies, executed by people with roots in Islamic culture: it is well known that in Islamic culture, anti-Western feelings are rife, resulting in violence, even over centuries. Such a broader scope will avoid ongoing discussion whether Islam itself is mentioned by the attacker or not: it is all about the anti-Western feelings in the Islamic world. In the Turku case it is clear that the terrorist was a migrant with roots in the Islamic culture, and the act was "terrorist", as stated by the Finnish police. So it is clearly related to the migrant crisis, and "Islamic" in this way. Also: many reports mention the man yelled "Allahu Akbar" but I believe it is better to wait for the official investigation about this part.

That's nice, but we don't need your agreement. We operate according to policies including WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV - verifiability, reliable sources and neutrality. Re the migrant crisis, the source used for that sentence itself says "ISIS clearly wants the European public to conflate refugees and terrorists, and it has been doing a disturbingly good job so far." The Islamophobic IP editor is doing the same. The source for the Finnish attack says - right after 'Interior Minister Paula Risikko described the suspect as "foreign-looking"' (that's supposed to be some sort of proof?!) "Finnish authorities have said, however, that it is too early to describe the incident as terrorism." Bastun 18:22, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

@Bastun: the attack is investigated as terrorism now. But authorities or reliable sources have not concluded an Islamic motive, so the entry should stay off the list. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:42, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

201.20.39.236, see above. An attack "being investigated as terrorism" is, by definition, not yet known to be an Islamist terrorist attack. We need a source saying it is an Islamist terrorist attack. The criteria are pretty simple. Bastun 20:59, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Bastun, see also Template:Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present) and Template:Campaignbox Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present) where, as one editor correctly noted, my reverting is beginning to exceed what is appropriate for one user. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:03, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

This was a foolish move. Finnusertop just urged Bastun to edit warring and he took the bait. I think it borders WP:DISRUPTIVE behavior from both. --201.20.39.236 (talk) 21:31, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I would agree with Bastun and Finnusertop here. Having followed it relatively closely, the Turku stabbing does not have a definite implication from any reliable source that it is an Islamist/Islamic attack. Best to just let the investigation progress. Shadowdasher (talk) 22:03, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

This is a pretty clear case of jumping the gun. Adding it under the heading "Suspected terrorism, currently under investigation" insinuates that the motive has been established, which is not the case here. There's also the issue of copying text verbatim from sources, which is a copyright violation. Finally, I'd like to point out that "terror attack" doesn't mean anything; it's a suggestive term news media use when saying "terrorism" would potentially be inaccurate/libellous. TompaDompa (talk) 02:16, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

If the IP-hopping anon editor persists in re-adding this prematurely, we should request protection for the page. Bastun 09:00, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

TompaDompa you're simply abusing the article protection. There's neither consensus to remove the Turku entry, you creepy Islamophiliac. --201.20.39.236 (talk) 15:29, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey, WP:No personal attacks. How is it I've abused the article protection?
I suggest you read WP:ONUS, part of our WP:Verifiability policy, which states The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.. TompaDompa (talk) 16:18, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

@Bastun: I am not Islamophobic but want a clear and complete list of terrorist attacks that are related to migrants that have roots in Islamic countries. The first sentence of this article mentions that this article is also about terror related to the migrant crisis. This is clearly the case here so it fits the criteria of this site. If Turku is not included here, I will make a new list that specifically aims at such terror, regardless if they found a clear IS link or not. I think this solution can satisfy everyone: one list of acts that have clear links to IS, one list that shows all. The public has the right to see all the effect of migration from islamic countries so I believe it is important to have a complete list somewhere. Alternatively, an extra colum could be added here, where is show whether the event is clearly Islamic (in the sense of related to IS), or related to migration from Islamic countries. We can not make the world more nice by hiding events. By the way: information released August 21 shows that the Finnish Secret Service had received a tip about radicalization of the terrorist, but did not consider him dangerous (http://www.telegraaf.nl/buitenland/28987842/__Finse_politie_was_getipt__.html). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.217.126.119 (talk) 06:20, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

The first sentence of this article mentions that this article is also about terror related to the migrant crisis. No, it doesn't. The first paragraph reads: Europe has seen an upsurge of Islamic terrorist activity since 2014. The attacks have been considered a spillover of the Syrian Civil War and is also linked to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) as well as the European migrant crisis. That doesn't mean "this is an article about on the one hand Islamic terrorism and on the other hand terrorism related to the migrant crisis", but "this is an article about Islamic terrorism, which is considered related to—among other things—the migrant crisis".
With regards to making a new list, I don't think it's a good idea to start another article with a related scope while the scope for this article has yet to be determined. We should at the very least wait for the #RfC on scope to be closed first (it's on WP:Requests for closure already, so it shouldn't be too long). TompaDompa (talk) 08:46, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

User2534 can you please point to where an official source confirming this as a terrorist and Islamist attack? The source you're using doesn't appear to do so. Please see Talk:Islamic_terrorism_in_Europe_(2014–present)#RfC_on_scope - this is a community consensus for inclusion. Bastun 16:29, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

As the summary says in the article "Turku suspect wanted to join Isis, called Finns infidels" warnings by several people to authorities about his radicalisation, open sympathies for ISIL, which has been confirmed by the Finnish Security Intelligence Service (Supo). The information supporting this is as good as many other attacks here, more detailed even perhaps. User2534 (talk) 16:48, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

So, in summary: no official source confirmed this as an Islamist terrorist attack. (Supo confirmed nothing, according to that source, other than they'd received a tip-off). Anything official? What's the problem with waiting for a trial? Bastun 17:11, 29 August 2017 (UTC) Can you please self-revert? Bastun 17:13, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

@User2534:? Bastun 23:00, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Ok, @User2534: - the consensus is to not include this attack as it does not satisfy the requirements for inclusion, per policy. Stop edit warring over it. The page is subject to 1RR restrictions. Consider yourself warned. Bastun 11:02, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 August 2017

This edit request to Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

For the barcelona attack, there are 8 attackers instead of 7 HeinzMaster (talk) 14:18, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 18:53, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

@Jd22292: http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/21/europe/barcelona-attack/index.html In the section regarding additional raids, there is a statement from the security forces about 8 dead terrorists — Preceding unsigned comment added by HeinzMaster (talk • contribs) 19:05, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Note: Marking unanswered; will leave both requests open for another user. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 19:22, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Already done Already checked the article. Don't know who made this change, but thanks. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 02:24, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 August 2017

This edit request to Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Adding the Surgut stabbings to the list, since a video of him pledging allegiance to the Islamic state was released by the russian branch of the organization. HeinzMaster (talk) 15:24, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

https://themoscowtimes.com/news/surgut-attacker-reportedly-claims-allegiance-to-is-in-suicide-video-58717 Source — Preceding unsigned comment added by HeinzMaster (talk • contribs) 19:08, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Done I've also added a source from the Associated Press as additional evidence of the attack. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 02:42, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 August 2017

This edit request to Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

On 18th August there was a stabbing in Turku, Finland, which is not on here, but should be. TórSimonsson (talk) 07:24, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't, as there are still no sources definitively identifying the stabbing as Islamist and terrorist. See previous discussions above, WP:RS, WP:V and WP:Don't jump the gun. The alleged perpetrator has been apprehended so those criteria will (or won't) be satisfied when the trial is reported on. Bastun 10:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done for now: per Bastun's comment above. If you reopen this request in the future, please be sure to cite a reliable source and phrase your request in a "change x to y" format so that the verbatim wording and exact placement you propose are clear. Rivertorch_WATER 14:37, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Addding Brussels soldier attack, 25 August 2017, to the list

Somali man shouting "Allahu akbar" attacked soldiers with a knife. He also carried a fake gun and 2 qurans, and was shot dead. He can not speak about his motives anymore. In my opinion it belongs in this list. reference: http://www.gva.be/cnt/dmf20170825_03035518/soldaten-schieten-man-die-hen-met-mes-aanvalt-neer-in-brussel

   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.217.126.119 (talk) 19:53, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

No no no, just no. This is far too recent to add, and this is not a news repository for bandwagon additions, which result is delusional claiming of everything from tripping over a person to a chip pan fire being claimed and labelled as terrorism. --Sport and politics (talk) 11:58, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

A soldier getting stabbed whilst the assailant screamed 'allahu ackbar' is 'delusional'? You're a fucking moron.

ISIS claimed responsibility by now . Put it in. Alexpl (talk) 20:43, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Adding London sword attack of police officers, 25 August 2017, to the list

Man, repeatedly shouting "Allahu Akbar" attacks police officers with 4 foot sword, who incapacitate him with CS spray. Arrested under terrorist act. I think it should be added to the list.

reference: http://news.met.police.uk/news/update-investigation-into-incident-near-buckingham-palace-256855

Just no, just no. This is another addition proposed which is bandwagon jumping, one man being a criminal is not terrorism, it is just a knife attack. If he had shouted "Buddha is great or this is for Buddha". Would that make it Buddhist terrorism? get some perspective here. Also it was not a 'sword' that is media sensationalism. The term Sword is also not carried in multiple news reports for example Sky News use knife not Sword in their most recent news report. --Sport and politics (talk) 12:08, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

@Sport and Politics: there is no Buddhist terrorism or Buddhist attacks of random European citizens/soldiers at all. But there is an increasing amount of such attacks by migrants with Islamic roots. To avoid further discussion about whether an attack is Islamic or not and can be listed here or not, I believe it is better to make a new list of attacks in Europe by immigrants (or their offspring) that live(d) in Islamic culture. Regardless if the attack is clearly proven linked to IS or not. Clashes of cultures have been the cause of violence throughout the centuries. The current attacks against random citizens in Europe can be seen as part of such collision: between the European culture and the Islamic culture (where anti-Western feelings are rife). The new list should exclude criminal and psychiatric cases and focus on deliberate attacks by immigrants with roots in the Islamic world/culture, on random European citizens/police men/soldiers (=terror). The European citizens then have a complete list of attacks against European societies. Such a list can also include cases where no proven link to IS has been found and also include Turku, Brussels, London. Only with complete information European citizens can decide whether this effect of migration to Europe is still within acceptable range or not. And make political choices based on that.

Police stated: “The incident is being treated as terrorism but we will remain open minded while the investigation continues.” Alexpl (talk) 20:58, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

No, there isn't. Less than 2% of Islamist terrorist attacks are in Europe, and the number of terrorist attacks generally has fallen drastically in Europe since the 1970s, in fact. Your proposed new list would seem to fall foul of WP:OR and wP:SYNTH, not to mention that it obviously runs directly against wP:NPOV. Bastun 21:39, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

There is an increase of attacks like the ones we have seen in the past few year and it is distinct from the terrorist attacks that Europe had in the past. That was often left wing, against NATO, against bankers. What we experience now has a totally different signature, targets and background. I see no reason why not to make a clear overview of this, showing only the facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.217.126.119 (talk) 07:02, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Claims are made, oh look more more more more terrorism. That is just anecdotal. Statistics from reliable independent third party sources are required. Media jumping an every brown person holding a knife in public, is not terrorism spiking, it is media coverage gone mad. Sport and politics (talk) 08:27, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with "a brown person holding a knife in public". Since a few years Europe is experiencing people with Islamic roots, attacking random civilians/soldiers. That is not regular crime. Therefore, these cases are under investigation as possible terrorism. Which is logical, especially if it is known that the perpetrator radicalized (Turku) or had 2 Qurans, yelled "Allahu Akbar" and the case was claimed by IS (as in the Brussels case, August 25 2017). It will be very easy to find reliable sources showing that these cases are under investigation as terrorist cases, no worries about that. Once clarified, they might end up here, they may be taken off the list, or no clear motive may be found, leaving room for speculation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.217.126.119 (talk) 16:31, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

There needs to be less overdramatising, the biggest thing any individual wants is media coverage, which is sensationalist, fear-mongering and unnecessary. these are only done to make a media splash, and as soon as they are called what they are, a crime by a criminal, or an incident from an ill person. Holding a religious text does not make one a member of a religion, shouting religious words does not make one religious, attacking someone and shouting does not make one an extremist. Third party independent sources please. Not anecdotes, or personal perceptions. Sport and politics (talk) 16:46, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

No worries, there are plenty of sources showing these cases are under terrorism investigation and these will be included. Showing plain facts is not overdramatising, it is showing plain facts. And Misplaced Pages is about showing facts, whether people like them or not. Everyone can make its own personal perception, based on the facts. And yes: attacking random persons with the aim of killing them is, in this context, exactly the difference between extremists and non-extremists. Sources: Turku stabbing investigated as terrorism: Brussels attack being investigated as terrorism: (in the mean time also claimed by IS: ) London suspect held under Terrorism act

Primary source claims from organisations fail WP:primary. The claims must be from independent reliable third apart sources. In this case recent news coverage does not pass muster. Sport and politics (talk) 17:46, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I totally disagree: "Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate in any given instance is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense". In cases like this, it is very obvious that governmental sources that do the investigation are the most reliable sources when talking about a list of attacks that are being investigated as possible terrorism.

This is WP:recentism at its worse Wikipeidia is not a news site. This is not a place for editorials. Sport and politics (talk) 18:37, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

References

1. http://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/19/europe/finland-stabbings-terror-attack/index.html
2. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-belgium-security-idUSKCN1B52FY
3. http://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/26/europe/isis-knife-attack-soldiers-brussels/index.html
4. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/25/buckingham-palace-lockdown-man-sword-attacks-officer/

Surgut, Russia

i have removed the section which read as below, and removed the referencing and formatting from this section. There were only two references which can be viewed in the editing history, and they were insufficient for the claims asserted.

A knife attack was reported in the western Siberia city of Surgut. The suspect was later shot down by SITE officials after injuring 7 civilians.

A video released days later showed a man declaring their allegiance to ISIL and describing benefits to using "primitive weapons," and was identified by SITE officials as the perpetrator killed that day.

This is not enough detail or verification to warrant inclusion on this list. Siberia is not Europe. This is also a recentisim bandwagoning addition, of a mere mews story. A man attacks people in a remote part of an enormous country, and is elevated to world wide news coverage and elevated to being a terrorist. This is the definition of media hype and over-blowing. Sport and politics (talk) 12:08, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

First. If an Islamist will occure a massacre in the streets of Cayenne (French Guiana), then you also will not include this hypothetical incident in the list? The European country is attacked, and what does it matter which part of the country was attacked? Imagine an incident in overseas territory of any Western European country and answer yourself to the question why this incident should be included. How does the islamist terrorist incident in the Metropole of a European country differ from the incident in its overseas territory? Double standards?

Second. Russian authorities almost never recognize the fact of the terrorist attack on its territory, unless it is an explosion or hostage taking. And in general, the Russian authorities do not like to recognize the fact of the terrorist attack. A vivid example A321 bombing, when the Russian authorities MONTH denied that this was a terrorist act. Media policy of the Russian authorities: "There is almost no terrorism in Russia, but look at Europe, how everything is bad there.".

Third. I do not know if this was reported in Western media, but in Russian media it is already known that the name of attacker is Artur Gadzhiev, originally from a village in Dagestan. Gadzhiev's father is registered as a radical Islamist, it's official. Over ten people were detained on suspicion of complicity in this attack. I can cite references to Russian sources, if you are interested in it.

Fourth. The Head of The Investigative Committee of Russia Alexander Bastrykin took Surgut incident under his personal control. He does this only and only when something very serious happens in Russia.

I apologize for my humble English. I just wanted to express my opinion about the incident in Russia as a person living in Russia. Your position seemed to me one-sided and unfair. --TonyaJaneMelbourne (talk) 16:11, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

It is simple, just saying it is terrorism is not enough, the authorities saying it is terrorism when it is not usually done is not enough, adding it because for perceived bias correction in the article is not enough. An investigator taking over does not elevate this to warrant inclusion. This incident first and foremost must be proven to be terrorism, and then must be proved to be islamic terrorism, and then must take place in Europe, At the moment it is failing inclusion on this page for failing the inclusion criteria. Sport and politics (talk) 08:30, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Buckingham Palace Attempted Attack

So we just gonna ignore this one as well as the one in Belgium?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41055985 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.33.139.205 (talk) 16:26, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree, see a bit above on this page, where Brussels and London are addressed and being discussed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.217.126.119 (talk) 16:35, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Inclusion of incidents in London and Brussels

LONDON: http://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/19/europe/finland-stabbings-terror-attack/index.html https://www.reuters.com/article/us-belgium-security-idUSKCN1B52FY http://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/26/europe/isis-knife-attack-soldiers-brussels/index.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/25/buckingham-palace-lockdown-man-sword-attacks-officer/ http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41055985

BRUSSELS: http://www.gva.be/cnt/dmf20170825_03035518/soldaten-schieten-man-die-hen-met-mes-aanvalt-neer-in-brussel http://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/26/europe/isis-knife-attack-soldiers-brussels/index.html https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4330758/isis-claim-brussels-machete-terror-attack/ http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/brussels-attack-soldiers-stabbed-knife-man-somali-belgian-terror-isis-allahu-akbar-qurans-replica-a7913781.html

PUT THEM IN.

Looking at the sources you provided, only two of them (this one about London and this one about Brussels) describe either attack as terrorism (as opposed to "investigated as terrorism", for instance). The former doesn't mention motives (or Islamism, or jihadism) at all, and the latter explicitly says that the motives are unknown. As such, we can't declare either a case of Islamic terrorism without running afoul of WP:No original research. TompaDompa (talk) 18:26, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I would like to point out the following are essential requirements of Wikipeida, Wikipeida is not a soap box, a neutral point of view must be maintained at all times, and civility must be maintained on Misplaced Pages. Please adhear to these requirements, and edit in a consensual manner. Sport and politics (talk) 08:56, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Incidents will simply not be included just because one user shouts and demands they must be included, the information and events must pass the five pillars of Misplaced Pages Sport and politics (talk) 08:56, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 September 2017

This edit request to Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

18 August Turku Finland. Moroccan knife fielding 2 dead 8 injured 114.109.74.13 (talk) 04:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — IVORK _Discuss 04:33, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Part of the military intervention against ISIL?

@AlexTref871: This edit doesn't make sense to me. In the interest of avoiding an WP:Edit war, I thought I'd bring it up here. Care to explain? TompaDompa (talk) 21:40, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry I deleted it before seing the talk page. I don't understand why it would be part of the military intervention. Wykx (talk) 21:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Addition of new information which needs discussing.

This edit has recently been made. It needs to be thoroughly discussed. The information aded is highly POV and controversial, and is incorrectly using sources to create a false narrative. The addition needs to be seen in a wider context that this is a highly controversial page, and topic, which results in all potentially controversial additions being discussed. The content of this addition feels like it has been discussed on similar talks before. Please discuss. Also remember the 1 Revert Rule. Sport and politics (talk) 10:18, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Content author @User2534: notification.

First, parts of the article have admittedly been poorly sourced earlier, which is why a lot of information has been removed in the last days. In response to this, particularly that the lead section was obliterated to a single brief sentence in the process, I have added multiple new sources which all directly support the content added in a bid to improve the article just to the basics of a Misplaced Pages article. Claims of a "false narrative" needs to be explained when the content added is written out black-in-white by numerous, if not all sources covering these events. User2534 (talk) 10:32, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

The false narrative being created is the increase in Islamic terrorism. The second of which is highly subjective and this article has had an extensive RfC on what is to be considered withing this article and the definition of Islamic terrorism. The additions regarding consider to be part of the ..... invite the user to question By whom, and it makes out opinions of journalists on the subject, and opinion pieces to be fact. This claim is highly disputed and has been discussed regarding this article before. Finally stating there has been an increase. This has again been discussed at length on this page, and all attempts by users to show empirical data on the matter have been shown to be flawed. Anecdotes from journalists, or opinions of it feels like there is more are unsuitable. For an increase to be shown the first thing which needs to be done is to set the geographic scope of the are being talked about, and the recent RfC was very unclear on that point. The mere fact that the claims are trying to be made over and over, should demonstrate that it it virtually impossible to pass the Misplaced Pages standards, to have the claims included. All the sources added together in the world could be used to try and assert the claim and they could come from the most reputable sources on the planet. That does though not mean they are not subject to verification, and the way they are used subject to POV and synthesis analysis. At the moment the assertions of a spill over are just that an assertion, the sources do not provide reliable proof of that. The claim of an increase are again just claims in the sources. even if they word it as fact. These proposed additions are similar to previous additions, which have been discussed. There must be a remembering that not all journalism is fact, and not all claims made by journalists are anything other than one journalists opinion, or the outlets opinion.

The Independent article has a title of Majority of Europeans believe increased migration raises terror threat, survey says. This is reporting a survey as fact and adding it without sources to try and assert opinion as fact. This is a violation of synthesis rules.

The time piece is an opinion piece by the author of the piece, even though it is dressed up different. The focuses very narrowly on specific events. In no way does that opinion piece equate to fact, simply because the author believes the claim they are making are fact. There is no explanation of how they reached the conclusion they come to or why they selected what they selected. IT is all opinion dressed up as fact.

The wall street journal piece is titled ....Transform Debate Over Europe’s Migration Crisis. Again not fact, just opinion and debate being asserted.

The times piece is very limited in scope and focuses on one individual in one incident. This does not mean the wider claim being asserted, of blame the migrant crisis.

The section beginning Major attacks committed by networks of terrorists include, that is a very leading sentiment. What is major? what is a network? Why only list the events that have been listed. This is primarily a list article, and the lists take care of the events which are subject to this article. There is no need to add POV by singling out specific parts of the lists in the article.

The sources used need to be used carefully, claiming links between events such as the BBC source, does not mean actual links exist. The links must be proved to exist. I also fail to see how that furthers this article in any way. This article is not for trying to link attacks it is a list article.

All in all while the author has tried their best here, they have not managed to actually assert anything useful to the article, the additions are things previously discussed on this page in different guises. the information especially the synthesised claims of link to the Syrian civil war and the migrant crisis need removing as soon as possible. The singling out of specific events, there is no objective basis for doing this on this list article, and as a result falls foul of point of view rules and undue weight, as who picks what is singled out.

Sport and politics (talk) 11:04, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Well I guess I'm just trying to figure out how it's even possible to argue against someone disputing the use of simple words like "major" and "network". How it's possible to argue against disputing that events linked together is inevitably partly a consideration. And how it's possible to argue against someone claiming that reliable sources are nothing more than "claims". I guess I'm just wondering how we can possibly improve an article if even reliable sources and the English dictionary is out the window. User2534 (talk) 11:56, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

There is an application of a so called obvious approach being attempted, where none of this is obvious. It is claims and counter claims. what does network mean. Is it 2 people? 10 people? 50 people? 500 people? 1 person in 1 country and 1 person in another? 500 people all in different countries? What is it? It is to broad a term, and has an the author clearly believes it has a common assumed meaning.

What is major, Is it a first event in a place? It a fortieth event in a place? Is it an event with a set number of dead people? Is it one with a set number of injured people? Does it have to last for a minimum time? Is it an event which uses a set method of attack? What is it? Saying oh it is obvious, is not the case as each person will have a different view on what that is. There must be an objective standard by whihc to place these events by to attach labels to them of this kind. Sport and politics (talk) 12:48, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

The material added looks to be well-sourced by User:User2534. I find it amusing that some editors may think WP:SYNTH applies to the WP:RS themselves.XavierItzm (talk) 12:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

The point being missed here is the sources can be from a high quality source as ever. It is how they are being used, and what the sources are saying. The sources are not conveying what is being presented. and the information in the sources is not fact in most of the cases it opinion dressed up as fact. Source is all well and good, but if the information does not reflect what is being claimed or the sources fail verification. then the sources are worthless. Sport and politics (talk) 12:37, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

The best way forward is to not use articles which are just reports of opinion polls, and claim that those opinion polls are cold hard fact, and proof of a claim being asserted, see the independent source as the example here. It is fine to make the claims but the claims are controversial. and the sources must not fall foul of synthesis rules, which is what is happening here. Multiple sources are being taken, with cherries picked from each of them, to claim a whole narrative. that is a big no-no. The hardest thing to realise is that some of the claim being asserted are un-provable, anecdotal feelings, and claims. which have no place on Misplaced Pages. These being alleged and claimed links to the migrant crisis, and the Syrian civil war. Those link will be claimed, but are nigh on impossible to prove on the blanket manner being attempted here. Sport and politics (talk) 12:41, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely agreed. WP:5. We report on verifiable events published in multiple reliable sources, and, in the case of terrorist attacks, we should be relying more on official sources, preferably originating in the country of an attack. (And the reason for this is that some elected officials in some states are pursuing their own agenda, claiming attacks in other countries are terrorist in nature when the investigators where the attacks have taken place haven't even stated that, and describing areas of cities or indeed entire cities as "no-go areas" when they're not. No original research, no synthesis, and no passing off opinion pieces as "proof" of a position, which would be in breach of WP:NPOV. Bastun 13:16, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment - once again, Islamist terrorism is what should be discussed. Describing ISIS and lone-wolf terrorist attacks as Islamic terrorism is akin to decribing IRA terrorist attacks as "Christian terrorism" - i.e., competely inaccurate. Bastun 13:09, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support inclusion of Syria spillover - the connections between attacks by Muslims in Europe and Syria has been pointed out by several RSes and is easily ascertained by any student of the subject - both in terms of on-line influence from the Islamic State and attacks by "returning" militants from Syria (e.g. November 2015 Paris attacks in which all the attackers had fought in Syria).Icewhiz (talk) 15:58, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - WP:OR and WP:SYNTH may not concern the regular inclusionists but for most wikipedians it is something that needs to be removed and avoided.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:00, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

PS - Please stop reinserting controversial material when clearly there is no consensus for such an edit. Consensus does not merely exist when it works for the specific side you support in a discussion.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:05, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose for now That there is some linkage to Syria is pretty sure but present text is crude. If certain events are Syria linked that should be said proportionately in relation to those specific events, and this is definitely not the most important or only point to make. Pincrete (talk) 19:17, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

One sentence at a time

The first sentence, which has been in place almost since the article was created, has never been properly sourced. It says/has said: Europe has seen increased Islamic terrorist activity since 2014. The source employed now, dated March 2016 says "Tuesday’s bombings in Brussels mark the third large-scale terrorist attack in Europe in the past 15 months." Note that there is no mention in the source of any increase and the period they are referring to is from 2015. Also our text does not say an increase from when (the early 2000s saw the Madrid Train and London Tube bombings, where the dead were in the 100s, whereas in 2014 only 4 people were killed by Islamist terrorism in the whole of Europol area). The very large increase was in 2015 and 2016 and was almost entirely in France, not Europe generally.

This opening sentence is meant to define the article, at present even that is both synth and not sourced, it isn't sourced because no sources exist, there is nothing significant about 2014. Unless the terms of reference of the article are defined, this exercise is futile. Pincrete (talk) 19:17, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment I never understood this: why (2014-present)? There are no sources that definitively point to 2014 as the beginning of an increase of Islamist terrorism in Europe. Would the article serve its readers better if we dropped "(2014-present)" and -- I don't know -- go by what sources say and clean-up the WP:SYNTH and WP:OR plaguing this subject?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:21, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Good points. Indeed, the background section then immediately starts talking about older attacks, in 2004 and 2005, then says the recent spate of attacks started in 2012... and the reality, of course, is that the number of attacks in the 2010s is still a fraction of the number of attacks in the 70s, 80s and 90s. That fact had been included at one point, I believe, but has now disappeared. Bastun 21:27, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I'll direct your attention to my comments on the subject in the RfC. In summary, the sources I examined did not agree with each other as to the start date, and none of them suggested 2014.
I have also made a table based on Europol's yearly terrorism reports. TompaDompa (talk) 21:58, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

• I think this issue is partially rooted in WP:NOTNEWS not being enforced for this subject. The historical context an encyclopedic article requires is forced to take backseat to a group of editors' agenda on terror. From the comments I have read here and at other discussions, you all seem well-informed on WP:NOTNEWS, WP:EVENTCRIT, and how to identify reliable sources. I encourage you all to watchlist this page and engaged in discussions as often as possible. The only way these policies will be enforced is if we do the enforcing. I guarantee more and more individual pages will be nominated as we revisit them for historical significance.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:37, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

The earliest version, 'embeds' the element of synth that a 'wave of terror/second intafada' is underway in Europe. The (2014–present) arose out of an RfC last December trying to find a less 'tabloid-y' title, and its only real logic is that the list already contained events from that date. If we drop the year, we necessarily include 'Madrid train' 'London tube' etc etc and we may be forking existing articles. If we renamed to decade, but make it clear that there is nothing 'magic' about the start date and that some trends precede 2010, whilst others are later, would that work?

Regardless, the tail is pulling the dog here at present, a mass of pre-existing info is looking for a logic for its existence. Whatever we decide, I think that it would be good to include a clear 'what is included here' in the intro eg "This is a list of events since XXXX which meet these criteria, these criteria and these criteria". Then an overview that expounds on the trends/problems/limits etc, (and includes a brief comparison with other decades) for which much better sources exist than the 'news' ones which we mainly rely on now. Pincrete (talk) 06:31, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

2014

There is nothing in this article that argues with clarity why 2014 should be seen as the year at which we begin accounting for Islamic terrorist attacks in Europe. It seems arbitary and odd. The 1985 El Descanso bombing killed 18 people in Madrid. Take out the dates.Contaldo80 (talk) 08:54, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

There is a clear divide between earlier waves of Islamic Terror - which were AQ / Global Jihad / etc - and this current one. 2014 is somewhat arbitrary as opposed to 2010-2015, but the gap from previous events is clearly visible in any chart of deaths per year - e.g. . Following the 7 July 2005 London bombings - Islamic terror failed to exact significant casulties for many years and deadly incidents were few and far between. In 2011 we have Brekvik (not an Islamist), and then in 2014 we have legislation in France regarding returning Jihadists - and some small incidents - and then large incidents in 2015 onward (particularly January 2015 Île-de-France attacks). However before the Jan 2015 attack we also have some late 2014 incidents, as you might see here - . Now, while France might have been the initial focus, these Jihadist attacks have spread out to other countries - definitely if look 2016 onwards in terms of "big" incidents - 2016 Brussels bombings, 2016 Berlin attack, 2017 Manchester Arena bombing, June 2017 London Bridge attack, 2017 Catalonia attacks - and of course many smaller incidents (single attacker who did not manage to inflict many casualties). In terms of organization - Islamic terror up to 2005 was typically organized - often with "masterminds" and "leaders", organized cells, etc. The current wave is almost all "inspired" individuals, some very locally organized "inspired" friends, with the attacks following a clear organizational terror network (Bataclan and possibly Manchester) occurring much less often. ISIS itself has been "out there" calling for these "lone wolves" to strike - providing inspiration and plans - but not organizational direction.Icewhiz (talk) 09:41, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Icewhiz, what you are seeking to do IMO, is turn a rag-bag of trends, all of which are seperately true (a small amount of 'official' ISIS involvement, which resulted in a very small (6?) number of the most deadly events/ some Syria effect/ a larger number of lone wolves/a larger number of low-tech, often self radicalised attacks) and turn this into a 'phase'. Some sources support the existence of a distinct phase, but many of the best don't and nobody has a name for the phase, nor a clear start date. The requirements of a list article are not met since criteria remain subjective. I don't object to recording those trends (+ any more that occur in 2017), I object to forcing these trends into a particular date (not supported). The date is pretty arbitary but is pretending to be otherwise, it is also built on a muddle of WP:OR and Synth which we are still living with. Pincrete (talk) 10:15, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

2014 is used by others as well. However we could just lump in all Islamic terror from the 2010 decade here (which will mostly be 2014 and onward). That this phase is distinct from prior phases (up until 2005 or so) - is quite clear at least per my navigation of the sources. Naming - beyond Islamic/Islamist/Jihadist/ISIS/whatever Terrorism (and possible date bracket) - is indeed quite variable.Icewhiz (talk) 11:13, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm essentially concerned that this article is strongly based on synthesis. I'm not convinced that 2014 does mark some clear watershed - there were Islamist-inspired attacks before and significant casualties in the years preceeding. The article also presupposes that only attacks were people die warrant inclusion - why not include attacks that failed to kill anyone? Or that failed or were foiled? Is suspect terrorist attacks were planned in many of the years before 2014 and most intercepted. This article is way too "newsy", bordering on the hysterical.Contaldo80 (talk) 08:22, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Just my two bits of thought: Isn't the de facto focus of this article and the start year 2014 connected to ISIS and ISIS-inspired attacks increasing after 2014? And thus, the article name and scope should be ISIS-inspired terrorism in Europe if we want to stay factually correct? Islamic terrorism is clearly wrong and Islamist terrorism also sounds way too broad? Shadowdasher (talk) 11:21, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

That's a good suggestion; I think pretty much all of the attacks listed here are ISIS, "ISIS-inspired" and/or "'claimed' by ISIS". Bastun 12:00, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

What are you going to do about those that aren't, or in which the ISIS 'linkage' is extremely tenuous? How do we define 'inspired', since there are already editors claiming that any post-2014 incident is inherently ISIS-related. I don't object to any coherent verifiable inclusion rationale, but I know that it is hard to keep out synth already. I can see some coherence to 'ISIS' claimed, but there is also the danger there of treating ISIS (Amaq technically), as a WP:RS. Pincrete (talk) 13:41, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Very true. Nevertheless I do agree this article has way too many problems at the moment to justify its existence. But I did a little search and there are already articles and lists on ISIS-linked terrorism (e.g. List of terrorist incidents linked to ISIL which has a much better inclusion rationale by itself "The following is a list of terrorist incidents and arrests that have been connected to or have been said by reliable sources to be inspired by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), also known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) or Daesh."). I also feel that this so called "ISIS-inspired wave of terrorism" is notable enough to warrant a stand-alone article and connecting the rationale more to ISIS might be the solution (e.g. possible merger)? Shadowdasher (talk) 20:45, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

The great majority of events have no verifiable link to ISIS, some of those are claimed by ISIS, but the extent to which that is credible or supported varies. Some are supposedly inspired by iSIS, but often according to a minority of unofficial sources or circumstantial indicators, some there is simply no link to anyone. People are almost always keen to include here, based on the scantest of evidence and often with maybe's expressed as fact. There is no 'wave of terror' with any consistent meaning, its almost always rhetorical and never defined, if a French source uses it in 2016, it refers to events in 2015-16, if UK it will probably refer to 2017. There would be no way of knowing when this 'wave' started or finished, so using it as part of a definition or title would be like having an article called Recent weather. There are possible mergers, but previous attempts to merge have gained little support.

IMO the answer is simply to abandon any pretence that 2014 is special, it isn't, it is not the start of anything and should possibly be changed to the clearly arbitary 2010. Certain trends have occurred in recent years inc some ISIS effect, some lone-wolfing, some low-tech attacks, some 'bursts of activity' such as in France for approx. 15 months, but the idea that there is a simple phenomenon, or that that phenomenon is coherently referred to as a 'wave', or has any commonname, is simply not borne out by the best sources. I'm not of course claiming that attacks have not happened, some very deadly and some astonishingly bungled and some simply baffling. To analogise, shootings have occurred in the USA, if we had a list of them, would we feel any need to 'tie them together' with any single logic and would we feel the need to invent a 'catchy title' for them which did not previously exist? Pincrete (talk) 00:33, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Agree. There's too much synthesis here. We are in danger of being the ones to create the story rather than report it. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:52, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Ditto. I quickly checked Europol's (whom I think we can agree is one of the most legitimate sources on the matter) terrorism reports and 2014 is considered in no way different from previous years. 2015 gets a bit more focus because of the large number of deaths by terrorism. And interestingly, Europol uses jihadist to describe the de facto form/style/motivation of the attacks discussed in this article/list. Would using Europol as the "framework" or "backbone" source for the article be a constructive way of going forward? (https://www.europol.europa.eu/activities-services/main-reports/eu-terrorism-situation-and-trend-report#fndtn-tabs-0-bottom-2) Shadowdasher (talk) 09:29, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I would support such a move, but Europol is of course EU only, but even a greater reliance on Europol and less on news would be a big improvement. I THINK it is Europol who date the key year for 'ISIS' inspiration to be 2016, they take the attitude that ISIS wasn't interested in 'home grown' till then if I remember correctly. The only reason I raise this is because if one looks at the better sources, there are subtle but significant differences of interpretation which go beyond 'headline-ese'. Pincrete (talk) 12:53, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks - helpful. As my point above I think we need to keep our eyes open with the editing of this article. I think there is a political push by some editors to give an urgent sense that "christian europe" is now under attack from muslims. It's not our role to get drawn into that so important to look at the bigger picture. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:12, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Redirect of Terrorism in Europe (2014-present) to this article

The page Terrorism in Europe should not be redirecting to this page. By doing so this makes out that all terrorism in Europe is exclusively of this one class. That needs to be rectified and made clear on the face of this article.

It doesn't? Bastun 11:58, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Apologies - it actually did; I'd not clicked on the link, for some reason, and had gone directly to the main Terrorism in Europe article. Fixed now. Bastun 14:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Sikh temple bombing in Germany

The bombing of a Sikh temple in Germany is not described in either news source used as either 'terrorist' nor 'Islamist', nor were the boys charged with terrorist offences (attempted murder). Yahoo says : On April 16, three German teenage boys bombed the Sikh Temple in Essen, North Rhine‑Westphalia, injuring three people attending a wedding party. Authorities charged the main perpetrator, along with his two accomplices, with attempted murder, causing grievous bodily harm, and detonating an explosive. Essen police later told media that the attackers had links with Islamist extremists in northwest Germany. … … while the German source is even vaguer … …Police arrested three people over a bomb blast that injured three people in a Sikh temple in Essen. The bomb detonated after a wedding party, blowing out windows and destroying a part of the building's exterior. A 16-year-old suspect turned himself in after police showed footage of the attack from a surveillance camera and special police units arrested another young suspect in his parents' home.

The US source (essentially the State Dept?) 'Country Reports on Terrorism 2016', DOES list the incident under 'terrorist incidents', but nowhere does it define those in its list as 'Islamic' or any synonym (though most of those listed clearly are). … … It says : On April 16, three German teenage boys bombed the Sikh Temple in Essen, North Rhine‑Westphalia, injuring three people attending a wedding party. Authorities charged the main perpetrator, along with his two accomplices, with attempted murder, causing grievous bodily harm, and detonating an explosive. Essen police later told media that the attackers had links with Islamist extremists in northwest Germany.

This partly fails our definition in that the authorities of the country where the event has taken place have not used either 'key word' while US authorities have used only one 'key word'. That this was a religiously motivated attack is almost certain, but is that automatically an 'Islamist terrorist' event? I'm bringing here, thoughts? Pincrete (talk) 08:31, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Year by year sections

I've split the 'list of attacks' into year sections. I've done this for two reasons, firstly so it looks clearer, secondly in order to include brief 'stats'/summaries for each year. Pincrete (talk) 09:28, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Good approach. I'd be minded to add an additional section listing events before 2014 as well - I think we can go back to the El Descanso bombing in 1985 conducted by Islamic Jihad. The next step would then be to drop the 2014 from the title and just call it "Islamic (inspired?) terrorism in Europe". Contaldo80 (talk) 09:54, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

That would add an awful lot of incidents, especially if we continue to include Russia/European Turkey. Pincrete (talk) 10:11, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

It would just add in four I think - assuming we use just the EU (as currently done for the others post 2014). See what you think.Contaldo80 (talk) 10:18, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good idea (better as 'background' in text), but let's see what others think. Pincrete (talk) 10:26, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

The article's scope is fuzzy as it is. I'm not sure if this is a step in the right direction. If the pre-2014 entries are going to remain, we'll need to summarize them in prose as is done with all the others (in the "Details" column). TompaDompa (talk) 12:13, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with 'Tompa' here, whereas rendering 'samples' in text might help provide background, (each sample serving some illustrative purpose), putting them in a table is simply inviting inclusion of every incident (inc unfulfilled plots) since the year dot IMO. Pincrete (talk) 12:58, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

But if you're going to do that then you have to argue convincingly why 2014 is a seminal moment, and that only events after that date have significance. I have no objection to people doing that but without it then the article is original research.Contaldo80 (talk) 13:09, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

2014 does not have any singular defining characteristic and is largely arbitrary, however 'opening the floodgates' on a previous 30 years is not the answer IMO. Already one sees that 1985 El Descanso bombing and Pan Am Flight 103 bombing are not 'Islamist'. Terrorist acts performed by Muslims (inc Palestinians etc) are not necessarily 'Islamist'. Pincrete (talk) 13:22, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Agree Pam Am Flight is questionable but El Descanso was Islamic Jihad. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:46, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

If you follow the sources on the 'Islamic Jihad' page, you'll see that the name is used both as a 'generic' term for Islamists and is also (as Islamic Jihad Organisation) the name of a specific group, whose objectives were 'local' in the Lebanon. It was the org. that were accused of El Descanso. This is the kind of problem I foresee if we go back to times when terms like 'Islamist', weren't widely used. Pincrete (talk) 14:01, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Sure but it's a weakness of the whole article. The fact is there is very little coherance between all these incidents. They aren't directed by one organisation or body. Contaldo80 (talk) 16:35, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Title/pre-2014 incidents

With the inclusion of pre-2014 incidents, confining this to being called to 2014-present is now a nonsense. Either only 2014 and beyond is in the article, or the title needs changing to reflect the removal of the arbitrary 2014. Sport and politics (talk) 13:00, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

For the time being, I would oppose removing the time-point, though text should not disproportionately suggest 'significance' to the date. Pincrete (talk) 13:25, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

But by having the time-point we're automatically giving it significance aren't we? Contaldo80 (talk) 13:45, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

One of my earlier suggestions was date to 2010, which is clearly arbitary and allows various trends post-then to be explored in text, rather than making 2014 a 'magic number'.

I don't know if you read this from above: "The earliest version, 'embeds' the element of synth that a 'wave of terror/second intafada' is underway in Europe. The (2014–present) arose out of an RfC last December trying to find a less 'tabloid-y' title, and its only real logic is that the list already contained events from that date".

I've been 'watching' this article on and off for nearly a year ... that may mean I understand the problems, or simply that I've been beaten into submission and should be ignored! Pincrete (talk) 13:54, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not so sure "Islamic terrorism in Europe (2010–present)" would come across as an obviously arbitrary timeframe. I think "Islamic terrorism in Europe in the 2010s" would, but that might be a bit too WP:CRYSTAL-y. TompaDompa (talk) 14:19, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

But I don't get why we need a date in the title at all. Sure break the article into sections to show a marked increase after 2014 but why not just keep it open? Contaldo80 (talk) 16:27, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

We need SOME definition and at the moment we are inviting everything from Palestinians in 1970s and before and certainly incidents before the term 'Islamist' was used. We'll then be falling back on OR and synth to decide which historical events were 'islamist' as opposed to being simply done by Muslims. The fundamental problem of the article is an excess of OR, having NO cut-off date amplifies the likelihood of it. Pincrete (talk) 16:58, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I've removed, UNTIL we have some agreement on the scope of the article. Pincrete (talk) 17:15, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I fear you're tying yourselves in knots here. The article is refers to "islamic" terrorism and not "islamist". You're arguing that it's easy to determine islamist or islamic events after 2014 but not before. This is veering towards original research.The 2014 in the title really needs to go as this is simply original research and synthesis. No-one has yet justified why it should be a date of significance. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I am most certainly NOT saying that it is possible for us to distinguish 'Islamic/ist terrorism' for ourselves, we require that competent (police or legal or similar) authority use both keywords or a close synonym (eg jihadist terrorism, which is preferred by some sources). Islamist terrorism is a more precise term, the danger with 'Islamic' or of going pre-2000-ish, is that the terms were not widely used and therefore asking which acts were 'Islamist/ic terrorism' and which were simply 'done by Muslims' would inevitably lead to WP:OR. It would be like asking which 19th Cent acts were 'fascist'. Many of the insertions being made pre-2014 (beside yours), had no reference to "Islamic terrorism" anywhere, they were simply terrorist acts perpetrated by Muslims (for what ever local reason). The article is poorly defined at present, but loosening definition further is not the answer IMO. Pincrete (talk) 12:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

A possible second RfC on scope

Since the previous RfC failed to clarify the scope, and we don't seem to be reaching WP:CONSENSUS through the discussion on this page otherwise, it'll probably be necessary to have a second RfC. The last one was very open-ended, so I think it might be worth a shot to have one with more predetermined options. Maybe that will increase the likelihood of the next one being successful (i.e. reaching consensus and clarifying the scope).

I've seen various opinions on what the scope should be, both on this talk page and elsewhere. I thought it would be a good idea to collect the suggestions in one place before the next RfC is started. So without further ado, please post your suggestions and opinions below. TompaDompa (talk) 07:06, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Simply make the article about islamic terrosim in Europe with no cut-off dates. 2014 is arbitary and can't really be justified. Certainly the attacks after 2014 aren't committed by one specific organisation. They are "inspired by" but not directed. Contaldo80 (talk) 07:30, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Contaldo80, you need to supply some definition of 'islamic terrorism'. One of the few agreements on the previous RfC, was that 'official sources' should endorse both terms (ie editors should NOT be assessing, he had a black flag, ahouted a slogan, had radical views etc.) a proposal from others is that we could include here where known organisation (IS or AQ) has claimed responsibility. Should Europe include Russia and European Turkey?Pincrete (talk) 08:05, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Why do I need to supply a definition of 'islamic terrorism'? What one are you currently working with to justify inclusion of post 2014 attacks? Europe probably shouldn't include turkey or russia as borders fall partly outside. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:43, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Scope should be any terrorist attack by a Muslim (ergo - Islamic terrorism), whose motive wasn't explicitly stated as non-Islamic (this criteria allows us to include attacks defined by authorities as extremism or terrorism but who do not, per political correctness, state the Islamic angle explicitly - at least initially), from 2010 to 2019. Possibly adjusting date brackets should they evolve in WP:RS to some consensus. Europe should not include Turkey, nor should it include Russia, both of whom are partially in Europe and face an assortment of terror/conflicts that are quite separate from the inner-European wave. I would define Europe as roughly the Schengen Area.Icewhiz (talk) 13:49, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Calling everything that a Muslim does that is not explicitly called not-Islamic by sources is original research and we can't have it. You cannot infer any conclusions from silence on part of the sources. Attributing such silence to "political correctness" is completely besides the point. We summarize what reliable sources say, and it inevitably leads to us replicating the systemic biases of the available sources. This is what Misplaced Pages does, because it's a summary of information that has already been published in reliable sources. If original research is needed to right great wrongs in today's journalism and academia, Misplaced Pages is patently the wrong venue to do this.

The scope of the article should be Islamic terrorism, as defined by reliable sources calling each entry Islamic terrorism. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:04, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

To clarify - if a RS states it is probable Islamic terrorism, we shouldn't wait for "official" confirmation. Obviously, sourcing is required.Icewhiz (talk) 14:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

In principle, I agree. Our verifaibiilty policy depends on the source being reliable, not necessarily official. But my hunch is that you are hard-pressed to find journalists of good standing calling something "probable" Islamic terrorism before any sort of official confirmation. Observance of journalistic ethics is a defining feature of reliable sources. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:12, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

In fact RS frquently use 'terror attack' in the first few days, when it isn't clear what the event is, and 'terror' is not 'terrorist/m'. The problem with "Islamic" is individual editors interpreting circumstantial (and frequently 'unconfirmed') 'evidence', (there are unnamed/unconfirmed sources claiming to have heard an Islamic slogan, an unnamed official claims that the accused's internet history implies XYZ). I can point to some breathtaking examples of WP editors misinterpreting available evidence and it staying in this article for months. No RS will ever say that it is "probable Islamic terrorism", they will sometimes do their best to imply it could well be when they don't yet know,(called synth here) or will make the claim specific if they really know anything (eg police say they are investigating the incident as ...). I don't object to those being the inclusion criteria so long as they are clear and explicit. Police say it may be ABC, does not mean it is ABC, that's why they use the word 'may'.

BTW not every terrorist crime done by someone from a Muslim background is Islamic/ist terrorism. The idea is absurd, no RS or news source of worth would use that definition, acts committed by Palestinians (for eg) for 'local' reasons would not be defined as 'Islamic terrorism' by any RS. This is a big part of the problem with this article. I agree with Finnusertop, very few RS will say that something is Islamic terrorism unless they have official confirmation, but many less RS are happy to imply they know before such confirmation exists. If good RS can wait, so can we. How on earth is a news outlet half way round the globe in a position to know better that local investigators? It defies common sense apart from WP policy. Pincrete (talk) 14:53, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

FWIW - Hamas or Islamic Jihad Movement in Palestine did carry out Islamic terror attacks (particularly when they operated in an organized manner (e.g. suicide bombers, back in the day, were offered religious salvation in heaven) - the current "lone wolf" attribution after the fact is somewhat different) - and we're labelled as such by RS. Other Palestinian terrorists - e.g. Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine or Fatah have a decidedly un-Islamic point of reference (Marxist or Nationalist) - some are actually quite opposed to political Islam and are deeply secular.Icewhiz (talk) 14:57, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I did say done "for local reasons", quite clearly any nationality CAN BE islamist. This is another reason why we should used some established reliable criteria IMO so editors are not trying to work out WHO a perp is aligned to - if anyone - and whether that group is "Islamist" or simply from a Muslim country. Pincrete (talk) 15:04, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

With the exception of Kosovo/Serbia and incidents in the far past (e.g. Algeria) of spillovers from other regions (e.g. Attacks on Israelis/Jews by Arabs, PKK/Turkey spillovers, Iranian related, etc. - all of which are not directed at "random" civilians, but are typically more focused) - the rationale for all the rest seems Islamic - I for one haven't seen a different rationale advanced - as I see it - you have a large bunch of attacks clearly labelled as Islamic, and an additional bunch of attacks (typically the less notable ones) which are alluded to be Islamic - but you don't have some official coming out and stating it clearly.Icewhiz (talk) 15:21, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

If you "don't have some official coming out and stating it clearly", you don't have a source, you have Icewhiz thinks and one journo appears to agree but Pincrete and other journos don't. By 'some official' I include recognised professional experts (such as Europol). Why/how would some obscure news source 12,000 miles away know more than those actually investigating an event? Pincrete (talk) 15:39, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

It is actually hard to be more than 12,000 miles away (And impossible to be more than 12,450). If we have a reliable source judging a book by its cover, we should accept such judgement.Icewhiz (talk) 15:44, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Prima facie, yes. But if only one reliable source out of thousands claim such a thing, then it would be WP:UNDUE weight to include it. Verifiable? Yes. NPOV? No. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:49, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 September 2017

Turku stabbing has updated info clarifying the attackers motive. Made a manifesto and recorded himself reciting quotes from the Quran in front of the cathedral. Released this video right before the attack. Requesting putting this incident into the article

https://yle.fi/uutiset/osasto/news/nbi_turku_attack_suspect_had_two_alternative_targets/9822061

http://www.hs.fi/kotimaa/art-2000005358250.html?utm_campaign=tf-HS&utm_term=1&utm_source=tf-other&share=d1b9d147b8945ce87769c69dee00737d

This edit request to Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

HeinzMaster (talk) 03:41, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

We need official confirmation, rather than our own 'assessment' of evidence. Pincrete (talk) 05:52, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:18, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Inclusion of 2017 Hamburg attack

A man with psychological problems carried out this attack. Three days after the attack and absent a trial, prosecutors said "It appears that there is a radical Islamist background to the act", according to a reference in the main article. So, nothing definitive, although from other included sources we do know the man had pyscholigcal problems that went untreated. To my mind, this does not satisfy the criteria for inclusion. C.f. the recent RfC and WP:NOTNEWS. Bastun 16:47, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

The source used (Telegraph), explicitly says "The 26-year-old, named only as Ahmad A under German privacy laws, told police he was wanted to be a “terrorist”, according to Süddeustche Zeitung newspaper. But police are said to have their doubts over the confession, and believe he may be psychologically ill".

I would say this does NOT meet the 'scope' criteria, furthermore, the pre-existing text "An Islamist stabbed seven people, one of them fatally, in a supermarket in Hamburg while shouting "Allahu Akbar"." Substantially fails to record the 'whole picture'. Pincrete (talk) 18:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

References

1. "Hamburg knife attacker had 'Islamist motive'". www.telegraph.co.uk. Retrieved 18 August 2017.

Issues with Template:Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present) and Template:Campaignbox Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present)

There needs to be a discussion to determine the "rules" for including wikilinks in these templates. Including the possibly of a name change for these templates. These is a requirement from the closer of the template discussion. Sport and politics (talk) 11:26, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Link to the closed discussion. TompaDompa (talk) 13:38, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Template:Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present)

Template:Campaignbox Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present)

Change of template name(s)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 October 2017

This edit request to Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

A confirmed terrorist attack occurred on 15 September 2017 which was the 2017 Parsons Green bombing where 30 people were injured in an explosion in London. Baileybobfam (talk) 14:32, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

 Not done I see no confirmation of Islamic terrorism. TompaDompa (talk) 14:52, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

This was confirmed to have been a terrorist attack carried out by an Iraqi asylum seeker. Isis claimed responsibility and the incident was confirmed as terrorism by the Metropolitan Police (see sources) Thanks ........ Post left unsigned by Baileybobfam

References

1. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/sep/22/man-charged-over-parsons-green-tube-bombing
2. http://news.met.police.uk/news/incident-at-parsons-green-underground-station-260197

Being done by an Iraqi does not automatically mean it has an Islamic/Islamist motive - though it might turn out to be so. Since there will be a trial, motive will probably come out so there is no hurry and we need an explicit source. Pincrete (talk) 16:04, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

UAE minister position

@TompaDompa: This is not one person - it is the UAE minster of tolerance - the type of official who controls mosques in the UAE. The UAE, incidentally passed a law today to further increase such control today. The UAE has also banned the Muslim brotherhood - including several European Muslim orgs - e.g. Islamic Relief UK, The Cordoba Foundation (TCF) in Britain., Muslim Association of Britain (MAB), The Islamic Society in Denmark (Det Islamiske Trossamfund, DIT), Islamic Society of Germany (Islamische Gemeinschaft Deutschland), The League of Muslims in Belgium (La Ligue des Mussulmans de Belgique, LMB), etc. Being a Muslim nation (historicallly and at present) in a turbulent region the UAE has quite a bit of Islamic experience. At present - the article is missing possible causation and background - more should be added, not removed.Icewhiz (talk) 21:40, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

That is still only a single person. It is also pure conjecture. I don't see how it can pass WP:NPOV, at least in its current form. A dearth of content should not be viewed as a reason to add low-quality content. TompaDompa (talk) 22:02, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

This is beyond a single person - this is government policy. You seem to be confusing editor NPOV (and the current text is NPOV) and the POV of the position quoted.Icewhiz (talk) 22:06, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

The reason I don't think it passes WP:NPOV is that I think it gives WP:UNDUE weight to the minister's conjecture. TompaDompa (talk) 22:21, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Well - this is the government position of a large Muslim country whose policy is echoed by others. This is not a small minority viewpoint. The article should perhaps have several additional viewpoints of the causes listed - but this particular one of a very high ranking member of UAE government, representing his country's official stance (which also included outlawing various European organizations), is clearly DUEish.Icewhiz (talk) 22:28, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Is it? To me, it's not really that different from if the United States Secretary of Transportation said something about the role of legislation in terrorists' use of vehicles in attacks. TompaDompa (talk) 22:31, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

The DoT does not regulate vehicles in regards to purposeful violence and terror. The UAE on the other hand controls mosques to reduce violence, terror, and subversion / threats to the UAE regime - as well as using said control as a positive tool to push the regime's message - for instance just last week President Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan instructed all the mosques in the UAE to pray for rain, and they all complied - ... And the UAE's mosque control practices are similar to several other middle eastern countries that exert state control over imams (both in selection and in approved messaging), so this is not UAE specific.Icewhiz (talk) 22:43, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Sure, but it still boils down to a minister saying "We do this, and you don't. You have that problem, and we don't." TompaDompa (talk) 22:53, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Considering said problem is the article's subject, this seems a relevant position from a highly notable individual representing a clearly relevant country. Perhaps other viewpoints exist on the causes - we should seek them out, instead of trying to nuke each notable possible cause.Icewhiz (talk) 23:00, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Errrr Mr UAE minister, we don't regulate ANY religious practitioners in the UK, or most of Europe. If preachers go 'off-topic' to promoting violence against the state or against other people, they are breaking laws like any other citizen and are tried like other citizens. UAE is a (relatively) autocratic and theocratic state, most European countries are liberal democracies. Are you REALLY suggesting that the opinion of this one man actually offers any insight into causes or motivations - or cures? WP:WEIGHT comes to mind. Pincrete (talk) 23:15, 15 November 2017 (UTC)… … … ps every time there is a shooting in the US, let's find some European commentator saying "it's your own fault, why don't you regulate guns like we do?" Pincrete (talk) 23:23, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I would disagree with your assessment that it is a relevant position from a highly notable individual representing a clearly relevant country. I would also disagree that we should seek out other viewpoints on causes – I'm sure lots of people have more or less well-founded opinions, and I don't think it is appropriate for this article to have a section that essentially acts as a repository for conjecture. Should we find something substantive (i.e. more than just opinions and conjecture, of which there is an overabundance), I would be in favour of including that. TompaDompa (talk) 23:20, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

btw, the minister is fairly ill-informed, or at least out of date. With notorious exceptions 10-15 years ago, there are now few mosques (none?), certainly in the UK, which are criticised for formenting/promoting violent Islamic teachings. Pincrete (talk) 17:18, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

It is not our place to judge whethet the UAE's position is correct, however when we have a significant gvmt position, and no this is not an individual's position, we should certainly represent it - particularly when the article is so short and when we do not have adequate coverage of causes and in light of efforts to counter systemic bias. "He's ill informed" is not wiki polucy.Icewhiz (talk) 19:01, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes I know we don't, that's why it says 'btw'. Any balanced and reasonably full account of the causes of IT in Europe, would probably NOT be suitable for this article, but to begin by quoting the opinions of a minister of an autocratic, theocratic, middle eastern country, which operates Sharia law, and who has no European-specific knowledge or experience doesn't seem like a very good start. Has any European politician, historian or scholar endorsed his view ?Pincrete (talk) 22:25, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

UAE is not theocratic (they do exert control on mosques for various regime ends, but are not a theocracy by any stretch). UAE is definitely well versed both in Islam and in counter-terror. We shouldn't only add views endorsed by Europeans - that would cause a large systemic bias here - however I'm sure we'll find some endorsers (mosque control is not a new concept - outside the west it is quite established, and in the west there was talk and some action post 9/11 and 7/7). The section should, of course, be expanded - and when it is expanded the UAE's minister of tolerance perhaps shouldn't be the first view to lead off.Icewhiz (talk) 22:21, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh please! Of course the rot really set in in Europe when we abolished the Spanish Inquisition and got rid of the Star Chamber hundreds of years ago! Can we look forward to more advice from the UAE on how to reduce sexually transmitted disease in Europe, a country that practises Stoning? The idea that European govts should hand out licences to religious teachers (or should that only be Mosques?) would be greeted by howls of derision from Christians, Jews, Buddhists, whoever and atheists alike in Europe. Babies and bathwaters come to mind in even trying to take the minister seriously.

Political discord could also be reduced by re-instating UAE-style Absolute Monarchy, after all, no viewpoint should be dismissed - unless of course it is given zero WEIGHT by anyone who knows anything about the subject. Pincrete (talk) 23:06, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Is there a connection between this and Israeli occupation of Palestine?

I wonder is any of the terrorism in Europe not only related to ISIL or Al-Qaeda but stemming from the European support of Israel and its occupation of the Palestinian territories? I wonder if any Islamist groups like AQ called for the elimination of the Israeli state completely. Is this even correct or no? Wrestlingring (talk) 16:06, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

We don't really go into ANY of the causes at present, certainly not 'deep' causes, which I think is probably the right approach. If attackers state explicitly that their motives are linked to this or that conflict, we include and link to the appropriate conflict article. This article is mainly an 'overview', with more details elsewhere. European countries relations with Israel on the whole, (compared to US), are much less unconditionally supportive of Israel politically or militarily. Pincrete (talk) 17:12, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

RFC: UAE minister of tolerance Nahyan bin Mubarak Al Nahyan statement

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following lists: History and geography Politics, government, and law When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should the following be in the article: According to United Arab Emirates minister of tolerance Nahyan bin Mubarak Al Nahyan, inadequate control of mosques has led to Islamist terrorism in Europe, saying "One cannot simply open a mosque and invite everyone to attend and to preach". Mosques inside the UAE are under strict government control. However the Arab Organisation for Human Rights in the UK said Al-Nahyan's remarks were incitement and that mosques in Europe are already subject to strict regulation while their officers "perform their mission in accordance with the moderate teachings of Islam".Icewhiz (talk) 22:37, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

References

1. UAE royal's remarks on control of mosques condemned, Al-Jazeera, 15 Nov 2017

See discussion in talk section above: Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present)#UAE minister position.Icewhiz (talk) 22:38, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Survey

Discussion

• All unassessed articles
• Pages using WikiProject banner shell with duplicate banner templates
• List-Class Crime-related articles
• Mid-importance Crime-related articles
• WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
• Unassessed Crime-related articles
• Unknown-importance Crime-related articles
• Unassessed Terrorism articles
• High-importance Terrorism articles
• Terrorism task force articles
• List-Class Islam-related articles
• Mid-importance Islam-related articles
• WikiProject Islam articles
• List-Class Europe articles
• High-importance Europe articles
• WikiProject Europe articles
• Misplaced Pages requested maps
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment