Talk:Islamic terrorism in Europe

Original research and lots of factual errors

Folks, this article is heavily OR. I just went through the German cases and removed those where investigators ruled out terrorism and removed them from the list. Terrorism is a well defined concept and you can not link any knife attack by a mentally unstable person to terrorism (even if the shout Allahu Akbar). Especially if investigators rule this out. While doing this, i corrected quiet a bunch of factual errors. I got tired of this but could imagine that the non German cases are as speculative an erronous as the German ones. LucLeTruc (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

LucLeTruc, see my comment in 'move discussion above. Pincrete (talk) 02:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

This really seems like a proper Don Quichote crusade ;-). LucLeTruc (talk) 02:29, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Some incidents are put up here without any confirmation or hint by the investigators of motive. That is against the rules and purely OR. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 20:26, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Westminster attack

User:Pilch 51 recently added back the 2017 Westminster attack even though the motive and terror links ate still under investigation. There's even notba single hint whether he was cartuing out the attack for religious motives. While the perpetrator may have intrest in Islamism, adding it as an Islamism terrorism attack is self-interpertation and original research (OR). This has been done by some editors in many cases where something is added as an Islamist attack without any confirmation of the motive or terror links sometimes. We cannot add anything by our own even if we think it is so or must be so. That is now allowed. We have to wait specifically for anything about the motive or whether he had any terror links. If there is then add it, there is no problem. But there should be a proper procedure. Rules must be followed always. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 18:28, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

2016 Hamburg stabbing

I recognise ISIL claimed responsibility for this, and so you would expect it had some relation to Islamism or religion. However, having read the article for the case I can't seem to find anything overtly islamist about it, other than the fact the perpetrator was of Middle Eastern origin, and so likely muslim. How do we know this is terroristic in nature? I recognise that I.S don't claim crimes that don't have an islamist motive, but there is not independent evidence suggesting the perp was inspired by Islamic extremism.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150112005126/http://www.startribune.com/world/288018961.html to http://www.startribune.com/world/288018961.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:44, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

London 27 April

@82.33.139.205: The source for the man carrying knives in London on 27 April says nothing about islamist motives. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:13, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Not Turkey?

See 2017 Istanbul nightclub shooting and 2016 Atatürk Airport attack. Beshogur (talk) 19:46, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with @Beshogur:. The attacks in Istanbul should be mentioned. But I'm afraid that most editors will not agree. They reluctantly included Russia in the article, let alone Turkey. --TonyaJaneMelbourne (talk) 09:13, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I think that it should be not included, because a) Turkey is not part of Europe (for the most part) and b) should have (or maybe does have?) its own article for Turkey vs Islamic Terrorism. This is in particular because sometimes shelling of Turkish cities from Syria by ISIS occurs, and because in Turkey there are other terrorist attacks, for example by the PKK/Kurds, plus the alleged terrorism of the Gülen people. Furthermore, there have been reports of turkish support for ISIS, which obviously would be needed to be stated in such an article. --Tscherpownik (talk) 22:35, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

You may as well exclude Russia from the article with same reasons. In addition, not all Islamist attacks in Europe is ISIL, see 2015 Île-de-France attacks and 2017 Saint Petersburg Metro bombing (in both attacks al-Qaeda is responsible), so you as well may exclude these attacks from the article too. I think if attack took place on European soil and has Islamist roots, the attack should be mentioned in the article. 2017 Istanbul nightclub shooting and 2016 Atatürk Airport attack took place in Instanbul (in most European city of Turkey), also ISIL is responsible for attacks. Mention of the attacks in the European part of Turkey is a good idea. --TonyaJaneMelbourne (talk) 18:18, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

The Istanbul Atatürk Airport and nightclub are located on west bank of Bosphorus strait: so actually they are in Europe. --Holapaco77 (talk) 10:37, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Remove Commanders and leaders

I think we should remove the ′Commanders and leaders′ section. It completly destroys the readability of the article. I have never seen a Wikipedia article with that much blank space. --Arcadius Romanus (talk) 21:21, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

@Arcadius Romanus: I made those sections collapsible to save space. They can of course still be removed if you don't think that information should be there because it doesn't belong, but the issue of blank space should be solved. TompaDompa (talk) 22:24, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, that is the perfect solution. --Arcadius Romanus (talk) 18:54, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Title change

The title of this article should be changed to "Sunni Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014-present)", as Shia, Sufi and Ahmadiyya Muslims have nothing to do with it. All the organizations and individuals behind it, belong to the fundamentalist Sunni movements of Salafism/Wahhabism.--203.220.72.109 (talk) 06:09, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I think Salafi Jihadism in Europe (2014–present) would be well better than your suggestion - focusing only on Salafist ideology, which is not the mainstream of Sunni Islam, but is branch of it.GreyShark (dibra) 06:40, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I think its a better idea to change it. Islamic terrorist attacks happened since 1985 in Europe. Supreme Dragon (talk) 15:13, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

It is very hard to find sources were officials state that the attacker was inspired by Salafi Jihadism. You would need to go trough every single incident and check if it was salafi inspired. What about non salafi incidents? Why make things so complicated? Also it is hard to argue that only salafis commit terror attacks when only 64% of Muslims in France distance themself clearly from terror attacks against civilians (http://pewresearch.org/files/old-assets/pdf/muslim-americans.pdf#page=97). The number of actual salafis is much lower (in Germany ~7500). --Arcadius Romanus (talk) 19:06, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Mind pointing out to non Salafi Muslim terrorist attacks in Europe from 2014- onwards? All of them were carried out by the fundamentalist Sunnis, that is Salafi jihadists. Shias, Sufis or Ahmadis don't engage in that kind of stuff. Please, don't try to twist things. --203.220.72.109 (talk) 13:40, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

With all do respect, why is any poll relevant? The question is who stands behind the attacks, which is Salafi muslims in most cases and I think if somebody got the time to check all the attack, there will probably be none that were not done by Salafists. Shouldn't the name of the page be as specific as possible? DrHadesCZE (talk) 13:55, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 25 May 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved - There was a strong opposition to the proposed move. (non-admin closure) Yashovardhan (talk) 17:14, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

---

Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present) → Islamic terrorism in Europe – This page needs to be renamed because the first Islamic terrorist attack that happened in European soil was in 1985 in Spain. Supreme Dragon (talk) 15:13, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Oppose This article is about the rise in 2014 and the relation to ISIL. I agree with you that we should have a complet list with all incidents in Europe. But this should be a new article/list. --Arcadius Romanus (talk) 19:11, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose I think that it's great idea to make article about ALL Islamic terrorist incidents in Europe. But this article's about the rise of Islamic terrorism in Europe as part of spillover of the Syrian Civil War. --TonyaJaneMelbourne (talk) 19:49, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Totally agree with Arcadius Romanus and TonyaJaneMelbourne. There is undeniably a whole other level in terrorism since ISIS controls large parts of Iraq and Syria. --Tscherpownik (talk) 22:38, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose for same reasons as stated above. Wykx (talk) 22:29, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

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)

Manchester attack inclusion?

So I was wondering, with Westminister being in, should we add Manchester to the page? clearly a terrorist act, with plans to terrorise concert goers and it involves a large network of people. ISIS claims responsibility, though this is not definite, the man is from Libya, which does have some ISIS factions. Factsoverfeelings (talk) 23:46, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, both attacks (and other ones) are specifically linked to the rise of Islamic and ISIS terrorism by CNN here: [1]. User2534 (talk) 17:29, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 29 May 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) —Guanaco 12:21, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

---

Closing rationale: There is little chance of a consensus for a move. It'll have to stay where it is, because it's been stable at this title for quite some time. (WP:NOCON) With the article protected due to content disputes and a massive {{multiple issues}} template for a lead section, there are a lot of things to productively discuss here. A page move at this time isn't one of them. —Guanaco 12:21, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present) → Islamist terrorism in Europe (2014–present) – I personally think this name is better because these attacks are made by Islamists. For example: List of Islamist terrorist attacks Beshogur (talk) 18:31, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with

• Weak support - indeed the proposed name is better, though not the best possible.GreyShark (dibra) 05:58, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support as Islamist is a more accurate and meaningful description. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:16, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
• Strong Support per EvergreenFir, Islamist is a lot more accurate than Islamic. Should also be moved because the current title was opposed in an RfC but was then moved independently and without consensus by another user. - SantiLak (talk) 23:19, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
• Very Strong Support Have a look at Wiktionary's own definitions of the two words. "Islamic" means pertaining to or deriving from the religion of Islam or its Muslim adherents. "Islamist" has many meanings, the most relevant here being that relating to fundamentalism in Islam. A Muslim who commits an act of terror may not be an Islamist, for example a Muslim who commits an act of terror to further a political goal unrelated to fundamentalist Islam, like secessionism or far left/right causes. Therefore an article about Islamic terror would actually be a catalogue of ALL acts of terror committed by Muslims or by anyone taking any inspiration from Islamic culture or Koranic scripture. Simply as a matter of definition and logic, the correct name for an article cataloguing terror attacks inspired by fundamentalist interpretations of Islam must be "Islamist". 80.42.65.252 (talk) 09:41, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - those who are carrying out the attacks call themselves Islamic, not Islamist. For instance it is the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, not the Islamist State of Iraq and the Levant. Similarly, in reference to their historical predecessors, we refer to the Muslim conquest of Persia, Muslim conquest of the Maghreb, Muslim conquest of Egypt, etc. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, who leads the organisation, has a BA in Islamic Studies from the Iraq University, so it is kind of artificial distinction. Claíomh Solais (talk) 22:39, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

What they call themselves shouldn't determine what the title is, what they actually specifically are is what should determine what the title is. They are Islamists and as such we should call the wave of terror that, it's not a political issue, it's an encyclopedic issue. Also as to your examples of those conquests, they were indeed Muslim conquests, but they were during the time of Abu Bakr, as in the 7th century, right when Islam was founded and was a cohesive group, not 1400 years later when it is what it is today. -SantiLak (talk) 23:51, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

To cite a similar example, North Korea officially calls itself the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea", a cynically false description. Conflating Islamic and Islamist on the grounds that a pariah Islamist group like ISIL uses the word "Islamic" in their official name makes no sense. Uncle Roy (talk) 09:39, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Depends how you define democracy; the DPRK's claims to representing the interests of the majority are far less cynical than Western oligarchies who market themselves as "democratic", while fielding candidates from two tightly controlled parties beholden to special interests. Just as we do not try to claim Franco's Spain and Petain's France were "not real Catholics", it is frankly farcical to claim that these people are not Islamic. Who knows best what is Islamic? Militant adherents to that very creed or bourgeois liberal observers haphazardly trying to manage the embarrassing fallout from such attacks? Claíomh Solais (talk) 21:17, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

The argument is not that they are "not Islamic" or "not real Muslims", we're not here to discuss politics and we're not politicians, it's an argument over whether Islamist is more accurate than Islamic. Islamist, a subset of Islamic is more accurate because it is labeling the attackers as what they are, members, followers, or supporters of Islamist groups who were inspired or ordered by those groups to carry out attacks. Islamist is simply a more accurate term overall rather than Islamic which seems to be too broad. Specificity is important in an encyclopedia and we should care about it. Along with what I had to say about that, i'd just like to remind people that this is not a forum for your political beliefs and we should keep the discussion related to the topic at hand. - SantiLak (talk) 23:17, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose, changing the title would mean changing something that is not wrong. Islamism and Islamic Terrorism is basically the same. --Tscherpownik (talk) 03:27, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
• Very strong oppose Wikipedia is not the place for political correctness. You can change the title, but the essence will not change.--TonyaJaneMelbourne (talk) 08:27, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support - This is nothing do with Political Correctness, this is about an accurate and neutral title. Islamist is accurate, Islamic is POV pushing. Sport and politics (talk) 08:56, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Using the common name of something is POV pushing? Please explain. El cid, el campeador (talk) 15:10, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

• Strong support per User:Sport and politics. Until Wikipedia merges the Islamism and Islam articles on the grounds that they're "basically the same", we need to be consistent with article names. Uncle Roy (talk) 09:39, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
• Strong support per nom-there is a shade of difference here.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 10:13, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
• Weak oppose Sorry, I don't buy the proposition that the present title is PoV-pushing anymore than I would buy the proposition that readers think that 'Irish', (or 'Palestinian' or 'Basque' or 'right-wing') is synonymous with 'Irish terrorism'. Secondly 'Islamist' is not the term being used by most authorities and RS, even though it might be ideologically more precise. This list IMO has gigantic PoV problems, mostly to do with not having any clear criteria for inclusion (any incident which could possibly be terrorism according to a single poor source seems to make it here, based largely on subjective editorial criteria and with zero 'qualification' or attribution) but fixing the present title is 'window dressing' IMO. Pincrete (talk) 14:44, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
• Very Strong Opposition - If one's goal is to stay true to facts, truth, and veracity, then there can not exist a better term than - Islamic terrorism.

1] What exactly are the intentions of the ones trying to gloss over the fact that Islamic terrorism is Islamic? Dubious. Any person with even a little regard for the truth, would consider it unfathomable to even think about labelling them - Islamist, and not Islamic.

2] When the ones committing the attacks themselves call themselves Islamic, then what exactly gives us the authority to contradict them? And if we are to dispute them, we can do so only through the evidence in the doctrine, which if we try, we will all reach the conclusion that it is erroneous, unethical and not to mention, dishonest, to label them as - Islamist, and not Islamic

3] To label them Islamist, is to force-create a separate category, in which to dump them, thereby distracting from the true nature of the issue, and thus is unscrupulous, wrong, and indeed, deceitful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.196.180.89 (talk) 14:58, 4 June 2017 (UTC) — [[User:112.196.180.89]|112.196.180.89]]] ([[User talk:112.196.180.89]|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/112.196.180.89]|contribs]]) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Oppose All these are attacks are based on Islamic fundamentalism. Which has slowly becoming the main movement of Islam since the 70s. It is not the purpose of this article to define if or what is the difference between Islam and Islamism. Arcadius Romanus (talk) 17:19, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose It's essentially the same thing, and changing the one word wouldn't make any significant difference. Compared to other discussions about changing the name of an article I've seen. Dogman15 (talk) 20:51, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Contra Dogman15, "Islamist" is not the same thing as "Islamic". Islamism is a specific political ideology, "Islamic" simply means "relating to Islam". The ideology may be inspired by the religion but that doesn't mean it's part of the religion. Calling it "Islamic terrorism" is as misleading as calling Right-wing terrorism "Christian terrorism" - those responsible might invoke their religion as justification but that doesn't make the terrorism part of the religion. Prioryman (talk) 07:37, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
• Strong support. Per other comments - the accurate and correct description is Islamist - which describes an ideology with clear social/political goals - rather than Islamic, which denotes a religion. The fact that they may claim to be following Islamic teaching is irrelevant, as the overwhelming majority of adherents of the religion take a different view. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:30, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support - More accurate title. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 14:19, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support - The suggested title is better and more accurate. Keivan.f^Talk 11:51, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
• Strong support - more accurate and neutral and per other comments. My Islamic friends and colleagues are as disgusted with the actions of Ismlamist terrorists as Irish republicans were with the actions of the self-proclaimed IRA in the 70s to the 90s. Edit to add: a move would also bring this article in line with, for example, List of Islamist terrorist attacks. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:09, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support - for reasons already listed. Wykx (talk) 20:57, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
• Strong support - I think Islamist is the better word than Islamic because Islamic means "of Islam". It is little bit obscure and it's not matching with context. 인천직전 (talk) 00:04, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - It sounds awkward, and is definitely not the common name. The page is titled Christian terrorism, not anything else. Having Islamist Terrorism isn't going to cause people to somehow have more politically correct views on the subject. It is a difference without significance. Other than, of course, sounding more awkward and clouding the topic. At wikipedia we should print the facts we shouldn't worry about whether Islamic terrorism is potentially slightly offense. El cid, el campeador (talk) 15:04, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

• I think Wave of Terror in Europe is more neutral than Islamic or Islamist terrorism in Europe --TonyaJaneMelbourne (talk) 09:32, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Wave of terror was one of the previous names of the article but consensus decided to move it to Terrorism in Europe (2014–present), yet without consensus and despite the discussion, other users proceeded to move it to Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present) as well as back to Wave of Terrorism before it was moved back to its current title. Islamist terrorism in Europe (2014–present) is a neutral as well as accurate description of the wave of terrorism while Islamic isn't and "Wave of Terror" appears to differ too much from general MoS when it comes to the naming of articles relating to events such as these. - SantiLak (talk) 09:45, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

This article is specifically for the rise in islamic terror attacks in combination with the rise of ISIL. This is not a general list of violent attacks in europe. So the title clearly describes what it is about. Why choose a more "neutral" title if all attacks listed are related to Islamism? Arcadius Romanus (talk) 17:22, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Previous rename discussions Pincrete (talk) 18:31, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

• My belief behind changing the article title from Islamic to Islamist is that it is more accurate rather than broad. It isn't a political argument but rather an encyclopedic one. Despite some editors suggesting that it is political correctness or that because they identify as such and because that, we should identify them as Islamic or that we shouldn't differentiate between Islam and Islamism, it is necessary to make the distinction. The mass murderer in Norway claimed he was a Christian Crusader, that doesn't mean we should identify his attack as an act of a Christian crusade when it's clear that he was attacking in support of far-right politics. Because it was clear, editors identified it that way, and we should do the same. These terrorists are acting as Islamists in support of Islamist causes. They were Muslims and Islamism is a part of Islam and there's no question about that, but the point is that as Wikipedians we need to be as accurate as possible in our article titles. Islamist is the most accurate description and as such I believe it should be changed to that. - SantiLak (talk) 20:08, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

• A side comment, the idea that the term "Islamism" is any less problematic than "Islamic" is a red-herring. For instance, the perpetrators of this campaign; the Salafist Jihadists of ISIS and associated groups, are in Syria and Iraq also fighting against different shades of "Islamists" represented by Hezbollah and the champions of the Iranian Revolution. ISIS are also hostile to the Muslim Brotherhood. So if, as some are essentially claiming, the title should be changed from Islamic to Islamist to avoid hurt-feeling, then what about the hurt-feelings of Islamists who are opposed to/at war with ISIS and other Salafists elsewhere in the world? Claíomh Solais (talk) 21:39, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

As we seem to have to say again and again, it isn't about political correctness, hurt feelings, or some agenda as much as some of you would like to believe, it's about accuracy. Islamist is a more accurate term than Islamic, and almost all the arguments i've seen so far against the move are not really strong or encyclopedic. The idea that we should label it Islamic rather than Islamist because the terrorists say they are Islamic doesn't make sense because we aren't here to serve their political agenda, we're here to make the most accurate entries in an encyclopedia, and as they are Islamists, we should label them that way. The other argument that Islam and Islamism are essentially the same thing seems to be more of a political argument based in opinions on Islam and it doesn't seem very valid as far as I see. Islamist, a subset of Islamic, is the most accurate term and we should use it. - SantiLak (talk) 23:10, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

• If this is successful should we changed Christian terrorism and Jewish religious terrorism? Or is there only a need to censor language when it comes to certain instances? El cid, el campeador (talk) 15:08, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, we should. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 07:31, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I look forward to seeing you add move discussions on those pages. El cid, el campeador (talk) 16:17, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Inclusion of incidents, which are not terrorism

There is inclusion on this list of items, which are not terrorism. These items, are just crimes, or incidents, with no actual proven link to terrorism. Some of the items listed are also not notable and are just news reporting of events. This fails a number of wikipedia standards on synthesis of information, original research, not being a news site, being reliable and verified in terms of information sourcing ad accuracy, and having a neutral point of view.
This article and wikipedia is not a mass repository of events, and inclusion must meet Wikipedia standards, listing all and sundry must be avoided. Sport and politics (talk) 08:54, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

As long as you just list policies and present no examples Sport and politics, it could just be a pointless claim. Alexpl (talk) 09:42, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia works by showing that inclusion is warranted, and not that inclusion is not warranted. The removed events are examples of the issues which are contained in the above. One Imam being stabbed is not terrorism, events with the description of 'alleged' links to terrorism, and internal prison goings on, are not terrorist events. Domestic situations between neighbours, are also not terrorism. Attacks by individuals who are mentally ill are not terrorism, attacks by individuals on police are also not terrorism, as these could very easily be a dislike of the police, and the same goes for the military. There needs to be a strong evidence base for inclusion or it is part of the multitude of problems listed above. Sport and politics (talk) 14:46, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

If that is the reason, you should be active on List of terrorist incidents in June 2017 and all of its predecessors. Anyway, if there are cases in this list, which are not labeled "terrorism" by reliable external sources, feel free to remove them. But your personal interpretation alone, of what "terrorism" is, is not enough to do so Wikipedia:No original research. Alexpl (talk) 19:26, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

That is the wrong way round, it must have sources for inclusion which are verifiable and reliable. The events removed did not contain this kind of reliable third part sourcing. The burden on inclusion is that information must be reliably and independently sourced from a third party, convey the information being put forward, not the other way round. Also stating what another user should be doing is missing the point on this page. This page is not meeting the standards and the information on this page is what is being challenged.Sport and politics (talk) 19:39, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Here are some examples of the serious issues:

Contentious entries

Date Location Article Details Deaths Injuries Allegiance 19 Apr 2015 Villejuif, France Sid Ahmed Ghlam case Alleged unsuccessful plan to attack two churches in Villejuif by an Algerian who was alleged to have killed a woman when trying to steal her car but accidentally shot himself in the leg. He was arrested by French police. 1 0 Lone wolf 27 Apr 2015 Zvornik, Bosnia and Herzegovina Zvornik police station shooting A member of a Wahhabist movement shot three officers at a police station before being killed. 1 (+1 attacker) 2 Lone wolf 17 Sep 2015 Berlin, Germany Rafik Yousef An Iraqi citizen, identified only as Rafik Y, stabbed a German policewoman in the neck and was then shot dead by another officer. 0 (+1 attacker) 1 Lone wolf 18–19 Nov 2015 Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina 2015 Sarajevo shooting An attacker shot dead two soldiers in a betting shop and opened fire on a bus. He later killed himself with a bomb after being cornered by police. 2 (+1 attacker) 5 Lone wolf 1 Jan 2016 Valence, France A man drove into soldiers outside a mosque, reportedly while chanting "Allahu Akbar" (Allah is the greatest). He then put his car into reverse to try to ram the soldiers again who fired warning shots and then fired to disable the driver. The driver said he wanted to kill troops because "troops killed people" and that he wanted to be killed by the troops. 0 2 (+1 attacker) Lone wolf 7 Jan 2016 Paris, France January 2016 Paris police station attack An asylum seeker wielding a knife and a fake bomb vest shouted "Allahu Akbar" outside a police station. He was shot dead by police. 0 (+1 attacker) 1 ISIL 11 Jan 2016 Marseilles, France A 15-year-old Turkish boy attempted to behead a teacher from a Jewish school with a machete. 0 1 26 Feb 2016 Hanover Germany A federal policeman was critically injured by a stabbing attack by 15-year-old girl "Safia S". The attack would later be linked to ISIL. The girl was in contact with the organisation. 0 1 ISIL 27 May 2016 Saint-Julien-du-Puy, France A member of the French military was left in a "serious condition" after being attacked with knives. He was approached by two men who "have criticized the French bombing in Syria." He was then beaten with fists and beaten cutter. 0 1 Lone wolves 19 Aug 2016 Strasbourg, France A rabbi was stabbed by a man reportedly shouting "Allahu Akbar". 0 1 Lone wolf 30 Aug 2016 Toulouse, France A policeman was wounded in an attack in a police station, the assailant, Abderrahmane Amara, was arrested by other police. He tried to kill the policeman because "He represents France". 0 1 Lone wolf 4 Sep 2016 Osny, France A prisoner in a radicalization prevention unit named Bilal Taghi wounded two prison officers. The detainee first assaulted a supervisor with an artisanal weapon. A second supervisor, posted at the entrance to the exercise yard, was also wounded when he tried to help his colleague. 0 2 (+1 attacker) 9 Sep 2016 Raška, Serbia A man was arrested after he tried to assault police officers with a machete while shouting "Allahu Akbar". The man was a self-proclaimed Salafist. 0 1 (+1 attacker) Lone wolf 27 Sep 2016 Rimini, Italy A man, a member of ISIL, stabbed a police officer. 0 1 ISIL 16 Oct 2016 Hamburg, Germany 2016 Hamburg stabbing attack ISIL claimed responsibility for a stabbing attack that left a 16-year-old dead. Police are investigating possible terror links but consider them unlikely. 1 ISIL 31 Oct 2016 Mülheim, Germany A an ISIL supporter tried to stab two police officers; she was admitted to a psychiatric hospital after the attack. 0 0 (+1 attacker) ISIL

I shall go through by date in order why the incidents all fail inclusion on Wikipedia. The majority fail on WP:NOTNEWS

1. 19 April 2015 - mere allegation of an unsuccessful incident, no link to terrorism shown, and there was no success in the event, so that is not terrorism, trying and failing does not count simple failing under not news, and unverified.
2. I27 April 2015 slamist event in a country with inter-ethnic conflict does not equate to terrorism, also fails synthesis as the source does not confirm terrorism, one opinion of an official is not a confirmation. Multiple sources are required.
3. 17 September 2015 Simply being a terrorist does not make everything done by the individual terrorism, an attack on a police officer, does not instantly make the incident terrorism, independent, verifiable, third party sources must state it is. Phrasing such as "suggested a possible connection" is not a confirmation that the incident is a terrorist incident.
4. 18–19 November 2015 "Phrasing in sources which is "too early to say whether the attack was an act of terrorism or simply murder." do not confirm that an attack is terrorism, sources confirming the incident as terrorism, must be provided. claiming it is without sources is Synthesis.
5. 1 January 2016 Source explicitly denies links to terrorism.
6. 7 January 2016 Article on subject explicitly denies links to terrorist cells and terrorism.
7. 11 January 2016, sources do not confirm self-aggrandising claims of the assailant. self-proclamation of being a terrorist does not make one a terrorist, or incident they do terrorism. Terrorist links and the act being actual terrorism, must be independently verified by reliable third party sources.
8. 26 February 2016 Sources do not confirm the event was terrorism, only "suspected" and "may have been" and "under suspicion" none of which is a confirmation, and fails Not News.
9. 27 May 2016 no sourcing whatsoever, and has been tagged as such.
10. 19 August 2016 simply shouting slogans does not make terrorism, this must be shown by multiple reliable third party sources, this is again just news.
11. 30 August 2016 Source does not confirm terrorism, and only relies on Twitter
12. 4 September 2016, only user comments mention terrorism, simply taking place in a prison anti-radicalisation unit does not make an incident terrorism, this is not a news site and synthesis is not allowed
13. 9 September 2016 Sources do not mention terrorism, and the required sources must be provided.
14. 27 September 2016 Sources do not mention terrorism, and the required sources must be provided.
15. 16 October 2016 description actively dissuades from the event being a terrorist event.
16. 31 October 2016 Terrorism not confirmed, and the description actively states mental illness as a cause.

References

Some of these have poor sourcing. Just mark them. If sourcing is not improved in the next weeks we can talk about deleting them. Arcadius Romanus (talk) 01:14, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

its the other way round, poorly sourced material and material without sourcing should be removed from Wikipeida, and only replaced when proper accurate sourcing can be found verifying the information being forwarded. Sport and politics (talk) 07:38, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Take a look on my suggestion. ThePagesWriter (talk) 14:09, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I disagree, we can (and are only allowed) to include incidents that RS call Islamic terror (or insurgency or whatever), we cannot decide that just because the Mr Winston Bin'dogo commits a crime it is part of some insurrection.Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

This is listed as a terrorist plot:

A man carrying a Quran and two handguns concealed in a bag, and a female accomplice were arrested near Disneyland Paris.

The only ref is a New York paper (one would expect some EU coverage of an event in France), the paper specifically says "No other details, including the pair's possible motive, were immediately available", no indication of prosecution or later release by police, 'concealed' isn't even in the source and of course no mention of terrorism. I've removed dozens of terrible speculative entries like this and simply got bored with doing so.Pincrete (talk) 12:19, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

References

These events have now been up here a while and nothing verifiable has been added, it is time to take these events out, it has not been shown these events are terrorism. Sport and politics (talk) 10:07, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand how saying "Allah akbar" does not make the attack related to Islamic terrorism. Obviously the attacker intended for it to be an Islamic attack, what other source for motivation can there be other than the statements of the attacker? A BBC article confirming it? El cid, el campeador (talk) 20:55, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Not every person shouting when committing a crime is an act of terrorism, and saying so misses the point of what is and is not terrorism. For Wikipedia this needs to be through the use of verified and reliable sources supporting that claim. Sport and politics (talk) 23:19, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Continually citing to this discussion as if it proves any kind of consensus does not make sense. I see maybe one person that agrees with you (Pincrete). There are people who disagree, but no one who strongly supports taking out swathes of information. It is sourced by reliable news outlets, which is what much of WP is sourced by. If you want to get consensus start an RfC or something-- but don't keep deleting SOURCED content that multiple editors have contributed. You are blanking sourced content repeatedly and are being reverted by different editors. So please, try to go through the proper channels. We can't censor wikipedia because you think news outlets are not reliable sources. El cid, el campeador (talk) 15:50, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Please contribute to reach a consensus on how to edit, so far policy has been raised which are the pillars of wikipedia, including verifiability of the information. It is not a blanket do not include anything, it is an only include that which meets the standards on Wikipedia. Single sources do not amount to verifiable or reliable. Sources must reflect the information being out forward and asserted and in this instance it has been very clearly shown that this is not the case. Sport and politics (talk) 15:56, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

But a reliable news source IS a reliable source according to WP. On WP we rely on news sources for information on items like terrorist attacks. There are not books on these attacks just yet. It is not clearly shown. The information is sourced and to take out a LARGE amount of SOURCED information, you should reach a consensus. At the very least, you NEED to reach a consensus when it becomes clear that multiple editors take issue with you taking out sourced material multiple times, lest it becomes an edit war. The information IS sourced. If there is a reliable source linking an attack to Islamic terrorism, it should be included on this list. The standards are not that high. This is not BLP. El cid, el campeador (talk) 16:21, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

The content of the sources needs to back up what is being claimed, if the content does not reflect what is being claimed or is only speculative, then it is not verifying the claims being made. It can be from a reliable outlet in and of itself, but it is may not verifying the claim which is being made. Having a source which has a reliable creator does not make the source reliable, The BBC is a reliable source, but if an article from the BBC is about football, but is being use to try to verify a claim of terrorism, that is not a verifiable source, and the claim is not reliable or verified, and must be removed, as the source is meaningless and worthless. Sport and politics (talk) 16:44, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Your personal vendetta against this article has one why to far Sport and politics. For example you removed the 26 Feb 2016 Hannover stabbing, despite multiple sources calling it an Islamic motivated terror attack which was even ordered by ISIL. Or how is the Jewish Museum of Belgium shooting not an Islamic terror attack? The article even lists ISIL as perpetrator. Why did remove all entries before reaching consensus here? I admit that the list contained a handful of ordinary crimes. But this is no reason to remove most of the entries that are valid terror attacks. --Arcadius Romanus (talk) 23:41, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Calm down and relax, this is not the place to hurl accusations of vendettas, and other such wild and unfounded emotive claims which are ad homenim. Remain civil. Also please be aware that multiple editors have removed different events from this article. If there is a belief that incidents should be included make an edit request and provide sources, which from what is being said for the events listed in the comments previous to this, should not prove challenging. Always remember to assume good faith. Sport and politics (talk) 08:55, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Unexplained cleanup tags

@Sport and politics: I still don't understand the reasons for these cleanup tags that you added to this article. Does this article contain any quotations that were "previously collated by an advocacy or lobbying group?" Jarble (talk) 20:39, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Please see above discussion regarding issues with this article and cherrypicking, and the selective interpretation of and use of sources. Sport and politics (talk) 20:59, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I personally only see the issue of poor sourcing. Can you please name an example for cherrypicking? This implies that Islamic attacks were excluded from this list on purpose. But you also complain about to many attacks beeing in the list. Arcadius Romanus (talk) 01:19, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

It is the inclusion of attacks which are not terrorism which are included, that are cherrypicked additions to make it look worse than it is a make the page look and feel fuller, take for example attacks which are committed by the mentally ill, which are not terrorism, which are included, they are cherrypicked inclusions, to the article, when they are not terrorism, but just events by individuals who need medical treatment. For example see theLeytonstone stabbings, which were not an act of terrorism, but the actions of a mentally ill man, which has now been removed from the article. Sport and politics (talk) 11:35, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Sport and politics, your POV is showing. El cid, el campeador (talk) 01:00, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

So, what, we should include an attack by a now-sectioned mentally ill man under the heading of Islamist terrorism? I think it's your POV that's showing... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 07:33, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Strawman El cid, el campeador (talk) 16:15, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Not a strawman in anyway, claiming an event which was carried out by an individual who is mentally ill, should be listed as terrorism is POV. the claim must, must, must, be backed up by sources explicitly saying it is terrorism, not speculated to be terrorism, not claimed to be terrorism, not investigated as terrorism, not believed to be terrorism. The sources and it must be multiple sources must say it is definitively terrorism.Sport and politics (talk) 16:52, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Scope and inclusion criteria

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.

---

This article lacks a clear and specific scope. The first paragraph in the WP:LEAD 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) would include unaffiliated terrorists, Al-Qaeda, ISIL, the Taliban, Hezbollah, and others.
• Option (2) would include Hezbollah, ISIL, and Al-Qaeda, but not unaffiliated terrorists or the Taliban.
• Option (3) 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...".

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)

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.

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)

@Arcadius Romanus: I've decided to create a proper RfC for this, and I copied your comments here to the RfC (and adjusted the formatting slightly to better fit with the layout of the RfC). If that was out of line of me, I apologize, and you can remove the text. TompaDompa (talk) 02:51, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

RfC on scope

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 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^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 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 Wikipedia should be. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 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^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 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)

New article's name change suggestion that will solve the problems

I offer the names 'Islamic insurgency in Europe' or 'Islamic insurgency in Europe (2014 - Present). Some people want every incident which mentions Islamic extremistm, even if it isn't recognized by the local police as an act of terrorism, will be included in the list. The correct page's name doesn't allow it, what The new name will do. ThePagesWriter (talk) 13:41, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Which will not solve that question, because unless RS say an attack is an example of Islamic insurgency (rather then say mental illness or just plain criminality) neither can we.Slatersteven (talk) 15:02, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

This have not evolved into a insurgency (yet...), please the current situation is clearly not the case.Mr.User200 (talk) 19:02, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

In addition to the objections already raised, I have two further issues with this suggestion. One is that this would make the scope of the article broader, which I find to be diametrically opposite to what should be done in order to improve the article – the scope should be more strictly defined, not more loosely. The other is that the proposed title does not accurately describe the proposed article (which is more along the lines of Violent crimes committed by Islamic extremists). TompaDompa (talk) 19:19, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

The problem with the term insurgency is that it generally represents an internal revolt of a populace against a government or state. In this case, an external enemy is coming in and attacking primarily civilians. Claíomh Solais (talk) 22:03, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

While I don't support changing the name to insurgency as it isn't really a rebellion against authority but instead terrorism, it is worth noting that most of the attackers are European nationals or citizens. - SantiLak (talk) 22:24, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Another problem is that they're Islamist terrorist attacks, not Islamic attacks, and the difference is an important one. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:36, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

No one has suggested that anything is an 'Islamic attack', it's almost meaningless. There is a difference between 'Palestinian/Basque/Irish' and 'Palestinian/Basque/Irish' terrorism. Pincrete (talk) 10:48, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia, only watered down.

Wikipedia should be "BOLD" and it shouldn't water itself down for political reasons. It's called "Islamic terrorism" by 98% of people outside of WP, why should it be changed on WP? I understand being accepting, and I'm all for that. It should be made clear that these are extremists, not mainstream Muslims. But look, there shouldn't be a different set of rules for all articles and then different ones when it comes to those involving Islamic extremism. Watering down language on pages regarding Islamic extremism doesn't help anyone. There is very clearly a large contingency of this site that wants to use middle of the road language, and not connect terror to Islam. That's a noble goal, but I don't think it's what wikipedia should be about. We should be above outside influences, at least when they are undue. Cable news may have to worry about pleasing this or that demographic, but WP shouldn't. It should be an independent source, funded and supported by its users. If this or that upsets someone, that's too bad, unless it violates something that WP is built upon, there's nothing we should do to change it. I'm sorry but I feel strongly about this because it FEELS like censorship, it feels a lot like it. And I'm afraid that political views will continue to hurt WP. Not just political correctness, but any views. What if a MAGA person censored the Trump page and softened the language that was critical of Trump? That would be reverted in seconds. So why let some political views leak into WP and not others? El cid, el campeador (talk) 15:19, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Seriously?! Had you visited any one of the Trump-related pages in the run-up to the election, you'd have discovered that pretty much anything negative about him was removed immediately (even if covered in multiple RS) and an Arbcom decision about 1RR on American politics was invoked; you had to take it to talk, where, quite often, a full 30-day RfC was called on inclusion of "controversial" material. Which of course meant that verifiable, sourced content wasn't present for the last, critical part of the campaign. That, sir, was censorship. Wanting to use more precise language around Islamist terrorism, while still covering such terrorism, is not censorship. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:32, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Well the same sort of thing happens in Terrorism-related articles if you want to state the attacker was Muslim, no matter how well sourced. In every terrorism article I can think of, in fact. But one sort of censorship does not make one type better. And considering the absurd number of separate articles there are for Trump related 'scandals' I fail to see that such constitutes censorship. I am not familiar with the history, apparently, but there is now more information on Trump scandals that anything else I can think of. There should be no censorship anywhere on WP, and everything in my first statement stands. "Islamist" is not more precise, it's the same thing, with a couple letters changed. The only possible purpose is to water down any statements "against" Islam. No one says "Islamist," not even liberals. This is not encyclopedic. It's not. Censorship of the Trump article, if and when it occurred, is not encyclopedic either. Burning one book can't be based upon the idea that another group burned a different book. This whole thing is turning into Newspeak and I don't like it. El cid, el campeador (talk) 16:15, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Your comments suggest that you might be American. Most people - and most readers - aren't. In Europe, the term "Islamist" is widely used as a descriptor of terrorist attacks, precisely to distinguish it from "Islamic", which relates to a predominantly peaceful religion. Anyway, shouldn't this discussion be taking place up above, where the article title is being considered? Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:53, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

"'No one says 'Islamist,' not even liberals.'", though the 26,000 results from Google News would tend to disagree. Australia, Canada, Russia, most of Western Europe, all using the term. But sure, "No one says Islamist." Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:25, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

26,000 results compared to 128,000 results for Islamic Terrorism. Meaning it's roughly 5 times more common. But your point is well taken. I don't know why it matters where this discussion is taking place. "which relates to a predominantly peaceful religion" is a POV statement. Christianity is predominantly peaceful but no one objects to Christian terrorism. El cid, el campeador (talk) 20:52, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Being a more accurate article title actually has to do with whether we should move it to the suggested article title, rather than results on google news. We aren't going to decide based on which has more google news results, and Bastun has a point as most English-speaking RS from outside the US do use Islamist terrorism. - SantiLak (talk) 21:21, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Actually, yes, they do, but thanks for acknowledging you were in error. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:21, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Unlisted plots

If anyone thought that this article is "over-listing" events, just take a look at some serious terror plots I found after a casual Google search for "terror plots france foiled".

• 9 July 2014: "Islamist plot to blow up Eiffel Tower, Louvre and nuclear power plant foiled, say French police" (The Telegraph)
• 24 April 2015: "Five terror attacks foiled in France in recent months, says PM Valls" (France24) (Within this three-month period, only Sid Ahmed Ghlam case is listed here)
• 24 March 2016: "French terror plot foiled after suspect arrested near Paris" (AFP)
• 11 September 2016: "France foiling terror plots 'daily' - Prime Minister Manuel Valls" (BBC)
• 25 November 2016: "Thwarted terror plot targeted Disneyland Paris, Champs-Elysées, police say" (France24)
• 11 February 2017: "Foiled France terror plot appears ISIS-inspired, source says" (CNN)
• And, according to the British counter-terrorism chief: "In March [2017], Mark Rowley, the highest ranking counter-terrorism official in the UK, said 13 terror attacks had been averted in the past four years."[2] Not a single of these 13 plots are listed here within that time-period. (This might be one: "First alleged Isil terror plot on UK foiled amid growing fears of beheadings " (The Telegraph): "Four men were arrested in dramatic armed raids in London during which one suspect had to be Tasered by police.")

These are just a few found in a quick scoop, none of which are included in the article. I'm listing these here to point out that this article is far from exhaustive (thus the tags), and that if anything there are too few events listed here. More unlisted plots can also be found at List of thwarted Islamist terrorist attacks. User2534 (talk) 20:14, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

But explicitly stating they are acting in the name of Islam does not make an attacker Islamist. The statement must be vetted according to WP:Reliable protocol, and then a RfC must occur. The state of mind of the attacker is not relevant to the motivation El cid, el campeador (talk) 20:57, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

No, actually, that's what happens when you try to introduce a Trump controversy. The Rfc usually later decides to split the controversy off to a separate article that most people won't find. ;-) Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 07:35, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

A few observations, unless police charge someone with 'a plot', or someone is deported, we have no way of knowing how 'sound' the police claims are, how real the plots were. I don't wish to be unduly cynical, but police/intelligence/politicins etc simply never say 'we are useless and haven't foiled anything'. There is an understandable tendency for them to justify themselves. Given context, I don't object to such claims being rendered as such, but they should not be included as fact, especially when the sources so often are referring to 'maybes'. Pincrete (talk) 11:09, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

There needs to be an appreciation that Wikiepidia is not a news site, and indiscriminately listing every news report of police events, against people who are muslims, must be avoided. The article has a tendency to label every crime done by a muslim, or every time a muslim is suspected of a crime, as being a terrorist event, or a terrorist conspiracy. Sport and politics (talk) 11:20, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

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 include to show it meets the standards necessary for inclusion. it has been in other discussions pointing out the serious failings of a large number os 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 Wikipedia. Sport and politics (talk) 09:34, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Inclusion of events

At the beginning Sport and politics raised the valid issue that some of the entries in list are not related to terror. Sport and politics created a list with poorly sourced or non-terror entries. Some of these are valid removal suggestions, some aren't. She also started a discussion about the scope of this article. Today she began removing almost all of the entries despite that no consensus had been reached and completely ignored his original list. Just a few of the most confirmed Islamic terror attacks that were removed:

• Jewish Museum of Belgium shooting
• 2017 Istanbul nightclub shooting -> Seriously?
• 2017 Westminster attack
• 2016 Hanover stabbing
• March 2016 Istanbul bombing
• Sikh bombing
• 2016 Magnanville stabbing
• 2016 stabbing of Charleroi police officers

--Arcadius Romanus (talk) 00:14, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

It appears there is an editing dispute and significant edit warring occuring, but I think its important to remember what is and isn't vandalism and edit warring isn't. That being said it still needs to stop, everyone involved in the dispute should probably breathe and disengage if only for a short while to make the discussion easier. Also as to those incidents which were removed, they were re-added by an IP user with the necessary citations and should not have been deleted again by Sports and Politics. - SantiLak (talk) 01:02, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

The citations have clearly not been read, please see the above previous discussion which clearly laid out all of the errors in the citations, simply having a citation does not equal verification of the information being put forward the information must actually reflect the sources which are being cited. None of the information which was re-added by the I.P. did this and as such was unverified, and the sources were not meeting the criteria as good sources. I strongly invite an actual reading of the courses and a reading of the previous discussion on this topic. There is also some information which is included in this article which has no source at all. I suggest reading the sources before simply stating 'there are sources and X is in the wrong,' I would also like to point out this is not the place to make person direct attacks on the Good faith editing of another user. I have a talk page talk on there. This is highly inappropriate. Sport and politics (talk) 09:00, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm broadly with Arcadius Romanus here, whilst I agree with most of the comments by Sport and politics in the list further up the page, and agree with her and others that say the general quality and use of sources in this list is appalling, IRO these cases, I cannot see reasons for removal. Pincrete (talk) 15:47, 14 June 2017 (UTC) .... ps I can't access 'Sikh bombing', so that may be an exception. Pincrete (talk) 16:25, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Sport and politics: That would have been probably more efficient to add the sources rather than removing those events that will 80% be re-added to the list... Wykx (talk) 21:54, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I am not here to go phishing for sources, the burden is on the original added to ensure it is in compliance, and not to dump wild information on the page and go "Hey, other people, do what I was supposed to do in the first place". Stop demanding it be done of the editors challenging the inclusion of events Sport and politics (talk) 22:16, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

1. Vandalism was the wrong word. I admit that.

2. You are right it is not your job to look for sources.

3. It our all job. So if you find questionable sourced entries, please mark them (as you did) or post them here if there is a reason for discussion. Besides that you didn't wait long enough to give people a chance to respond to the entries up for discussion you deleted much more entries than you listed here. There was no chance improving the sourcing or discussing them. That is what me personal irritates the most. None of the examples I listed here were listed in your original list of 17 questionable entries. Except the Safia S. stabbing, which you removed despite posting a valid source [3] that confirms the ISIL connection (she got convicted for supporting a terror group (ISIL)). Which brings me to the next point. It seems that you don't if someone improves a source.

4. You always claim that the removal was agreed to in the discussion, where? Please point to the discussion. There is a discussion about your list, but it was mostly you, El cid, el campeado , Alexpl and I. Not one person agreed with you removing even just these 17. The discussion about the scope of the article should be followed. --Arcadius Romanus (talk) 20:48, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Its easier to just get on with editing and constructive discussion, as opposed to commenting on contributors. If there is a wish to talk to me personally please do so on my talk page. Please also remember this is not voting, and what the five pillars of Wikiepdia are.

Getting back to the discussion at hand, I welcome seeing the sources proving the information being asserted, please also feel free to make an edit request to have these events re-inserted if you believe they fulfill the policies and guidelines for inclusion on Wikiepdia. Sport and politics (talk) 21:38, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

We would certainly never ask you to phish anyone. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐁT₳LKᐃ 13:38, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

@El cid, el campeado anything constructive to add to the discussion? or just more terseness and hollowness? Sport and politics (talk) 16:10, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

No need for personal insults. Just want to assure this article is not blanked again. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐁT₳LKᐃ 16:15, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Clean start discussion on specific events

The events in question are as follows:

• Jewish Museum of Belgium shooting
• 2017 Istanbul nightclub shooting
• 2017 Westminster attack
• 2016 Hanover stabbing
• March 2016 Istanbul bombing
• Sikh bombing
• 2016 Magnanville stabbing
• 2016 stabbing of Charleroi police officers

With respect of the Sikh event, the article nowhere in the main body of the text says it is terrorism, it only says 'was thought to be religiously motivated', that does not confirm that the event is terrorism, saying it is so does not reflect the source. Sport and politics (talk) 21:50, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Agree about Sikh bombing, this is much more a 'hate crime', but neither term is used in source.Pincrete (talk) 06:39, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Agree the sourcing isn't good. There are some German sources that mention that according to the police the perpetrators were part of a jihadi network and that call it a terror attack or salafi attack. Source 1, Source 2, Source 3. --Arcadius Romanus (talk) 09:31, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

For those listed events, here are some sources:

• Jewish Museum of Belgium shooting: http://www.lemonde.fr/europe/article/2014/06/01/tuerie-de-bruxelles-un-suspect-francais-arrete_4429835_3214.html

"Assasination attempt linked to a terrorist attempt" (« Tentative d'assassinat en lien avec une entreprise terroriste »); "In suspect's luggage, policemen have also found a video of 40 seconds including ISIS flag" ("Dans les bagages du suspect, les policiers ont aussi trouvé une vidéo d'une quarantaine de secondes, comportant le drapeau de l'Etat islamique")

• 2017 Istanbul nightclub shooting: http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/02/europe/turkey-nightclub-attack/
• 2017 Westminster attack: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/last-message-left-by-westminster-attacker-khalid-masood-uncovered-by-security-agencies-a7706561.html and https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/23/westminster-attack-police-arrest-seven-people-in-raids-at-six-addresses
• March 2016 Istanbul bombing: http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/Default.aspx?pageID=238&nID=96674&NewsCatID=509
• 2016 Magnanville stabbing: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36530710
• 2016 stabbing of Charleroi police officers: http://www.lefigaro.fr/international/2016/08/06/01003-20160806ARTFIG00130-belgique-deux-policieres-attaquees-a-l-arme-blanche-a-charleroi.php

"ISIS claims Charleroi's attack" ("l'État islamique revendique l'attaque de Charleroi"); le premier ministre Charles Michel a indiqué qu'une enquête a été ouverte par la justice belge pour «tentative d'assassinat terroriste».); "The Prime minister Charles Michel has indicated an inquiry has been open by Belgian justice for "terroris assasination attempt". The Prime Minister has stated that "a certain number of elements have appeared immediately" to justify the type of this inquiry including the fact that the perpetrator had shoulted "Allah Akbar" ("le premier ministre Charles Michel a indiqué qu'une enquête a été ouverte par la justice belge pour «tentative d'assassinat terroriste». Le premier ministre a évoqué «qu'un certain nombre d'éléments sont apparus immédiatement» pour justifier le caractère de cette enquête dont le fait que l'assaillant avait crié «Allah akbar».")

Do you have comments on those ones before reinclusion? Wykx (talk) 10:10, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Please ensure that the sources which are not in english comply with policy on non-English sources and please also provide quotations from the relevant articles (English and non-English (with translations in to English)) which verify specifically the claims in the article, in order to avoid synthesis and any of the other sourcing issues previously mentioned in this talk page. Sport and politics (talk)

Added. Wykx (talk) 11:54, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

The article I know well is 'Westminster'. First of all I do not dispute for one second that 'Westminster' is almost certainly Islamic terrorism, both police and Th. May have so described it. However the 'Indy' source offered above does not mention the term at all or any synonym. We are supposed to conclude that a final message from Masood to an acquantaince in which Masood speaks of 'jihad' must mean that the act was terrorist, even though we know very well that 'jihad' means something very different to western journalists and readers. This kind of 'leap of logic' is the problem throughout the topic area IMO.

One thing that concerns me as much as the "is /isn't an event Islamic terrorism" question, is the lack of context in the list (and often in linked articles). If police are treating the incident as Islamic terrorism, we should say that, if ISIL claim responsibility but police doubt it, we should say it, if people are found guilty of terrorist offences ditto. At present there is a 'one size fits all approach' that seems more interested in projecting a super-heated PoV than actually supplying a balanced account of a complex situation in which some incidents (a relatively small number) are unquestionably ISIL terrorism and then a sliding scale in which it is difficult to see whether/to what extent other incidents are 'copy-cat', ultimately down to some incidents, such as those involving the long-term mentally ill, which are certainly, demonstrably NOT any kind of terrorism according to both RS and authorities.Pincrete (talk) 13:55, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I have added a Guardian link with a title 'Police unravel multiple aliases of Westminster terrorist Khalid Masood' which is clearly mentioning terrorism. Wykx (talk) 14:06, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

One of the best and most common ways to make good lists on Wikipedia is to use lists made by secondary sources as references themselves. Examples of some such references are these articles by AFP, Deutsche Welle, + these [4] [5]. These lists should be a good starting point (although they're not exhaustive). User2534 (talk) 15:41, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Synth and OR in text

The level of SYNTH, OR and misuse of sources in the text (as opposed to list entries), is diabolical:

1) France is a top-targeted country, with nineteen attacks occured between December 2014 and April 2017,[4] … … the source used lists 8 attacks, up to July 2016 (Normandy Church), the other 11 are OR. The source makes no mention of France being a 'top-targeted country'.

2) The next para blatantly misrepresents sources: Numbers of jihadists in Western Europe have increased rapidly in recent years. French authorities in 2016 revealed they were monitoring 15,000 "radical Islamists", of which 4,000 were deemed "highest risk of carrying out an attack".[12] The UK's MI5 in 2017 said they had 23,000 officially registered "jihadist extremists" in the country, of which there was only capacity to actively monitor 3,000 at any given time

In fact the Fr source says "French authorities are monitoring around 15,000 individuals who are suspected of being radical Islamists, according to local publication La Journal du Dimanche" So the real claim is not made by 'French authorities' but rather 'local publication La Journal du Dimanche' and even that fairly minor source does not say "radical Islamists", rather 'supects'. MI5 do not say there are "23,000 officially registered "jihadist extremists" in the country", it's the Times that invents that description. Other news outlets report 23,000 people on MI5's database, some of those of course are potential terrorists, most are almost certainly simply 'names acquired during investigations'. I cannot remember the exact descriptor used by MI5, it certainly isn't "officially registered "jihadist extremists" (wtf is an 'officially registered extremist'?). Belgian figures appear to me to be equally misrepresented as 'official' figures, when they appear to be sourced to a claim made by an individual minor publication.

Almost every sentence of the text reads as a personal editorial, based on PoV and highly selective mis-reading of sources. Pincrete (talk) 16:14, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I completely agree, and endorse the above comments, as a strong critique of a systemic problem with this article. The article needs a serious overhaul, and this is beginning from the change of the title from the absurd "Wave of Terror" to the information actually reflecting the content of the sources being used. More of this correction of the article and ensuring it conforms with Wikipedias Core Pillars is essential. Sport and politics (talk) 16:53, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely agreed - the article right now, outside of the list entries, is in serious violation of the WP:5. Even some of the list entries are dubious, with some editors intent on including material even with no or poor sourcing. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:29, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

For the record, no one was against re-writing the body, just from blanking sourced entries on the list against consensus. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐁT₳LKᐃ 13:37, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is though against the adding of information without sources, and is against the adding of information which misuses sources, and is against the adding of information which bears no resemblance to the sources put next to the information. This article is one of the worst offenders for source misuse, lack of a source, or sources not reflecting the information presented and wrongly claimed to come from the source. The founder of Wikiepida could not have expressed the frustrations being felt here any better than he did here and he further goes on to say "crap is crap yank it". Sport and politics (talk) 16:28, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

There are a lot of articles that need work on WP, this is hardly the worst offender by any means. I see it's hopeless to reason with you, however, and consider this my resignation from this page, please do not contact me regarding it or anything tangentially related to this. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐁT₳LKᐃ 16:31, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, now the Swedish intelligence Säpo have also come out with their report, saying that the number of "violent Islamist extremists" (their words) in Sweden have soared from 200 in 2010 to "thousands" today.[6] The French number of 15,000 can be attributed directly to the former French Prime Minister Manuel Valls[7][8], not just a "local publication La Journal du Dimanche" as Pincrete claim above. It is all in all very unconstructive to dismiss everything with labels as "diabolical", "article is one of the worst offenders" etc., when the attitude of constructive editors normally would be, in the case that an error is found, to correct the given statement, not to demand entire paragraphs to be deleted based on more or less minor errors in how something is referenced. User2534 (talk) 16:06, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Read your sources more carefully, what Valls actually says is: "There are 15,000 who are “in the process of being radicalized,” said Valls adding that some 1,400 individuals are already the subjects of investigations related to various alleged terror offences." The description "15,000 potential terror suspects" appears to be the publication's, not Valls' and is anyway fairly meaningless, (we are all 'potential murder suspects' aren't we?) The text is also still a long way from our text "monitoring 15,000 "radical Islamists" (note quotes invented by WP, as though Fr authorities actually used this term when only the paper did, note omission of 'suspects', note addition of 'monitoring', note 'Fr authorities' not 'Valls').

Re: the 'Swedish' source, it also says "He stressed, however, that only a few of the "thousands" had both the intention and ability to carry out a terror attack". You cannot cherry-pick the parts of a source, you endorse, that is the very definition of intentional misrepresentation.

I repeat, the level of OR, synth and misrepresentation of sources here is truly 'diabolical'. Pincrete (talk) 16:59, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

There's nothing about this that negate the fact that these are real numbers that are identified by intelligence and security sevices in several countries. Please make corrections and add nuances to this, but there is nothing close to any "intentional misrepresentation" by referencing numbers which have been provided by agencies, governments and news across Europe. User2534 (talk) 09:23, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

The information must reflect the sources, and the information must meet the standards for inclusion on wikipeida. Verifiable infomration does not automatically equal inclusion. Sources do not automatically equal inclusion. the information must be notable and the information must also be more than simply news reporting. Keeping on going. I have a source and it must be included, shows that the quality and notability of the information is not being assessed. Simply being stated by a security source is not good enough that must be independently verified and reliably third party sourced. Sport and politics (talk) 09:39, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

So there's nothing relevant about the numbers of identified Islamic extremists with Islamic terrorism in Europe? The sources themselves put the numbers directly in the context of recent terrorist attacks, notably since many terrorists have been, currently or previously part of these investigations which becomes a debate after almost every attack. It is literally spelled out by the sources. User2534 (talk) 10:46, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

This needs to be confirmed b multiple independent third party sources, and as has been pointed out the information in the sources is not an accurate reflection of the content being portrayed. If the information accurately portrays the content, then the information will meet the inclusion criteria for this encyclopaedia. Simply going, numbers in the source, is not enough when that has been demonstrated to not be an accurate reflection of the source. Sport and politics (talk) 11:33, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

So sources need to be confirmed by sources? User2534 (talk) 11:41, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

If you want to see it like that, yes. The information contained in the sources needs to be reliable. It cannot just be one source giving its view, take, slant, or interpretation. The source may be wrong or the information it is portraying may be inaccurate, even though the source material is acting in good faith. The information needs to be verifiable, and single sources for contentious information do not make the claims any more reliable than having no source at all. A good minimum number to aim for is three sources, showing the wider notability of the information and the accuracy of the information. Sport and politics (talk) 14:51, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Ok, it´s a list in the first place, so lets remove the disputed parts of the written text, so that we can focus on the list itself. Alexpl (talk) 22:09, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Re: So there's nothing relevant about the numbers of identified Islamic extremists . There would be, if this was what was said by intelligence authorities, but it clearly isn't. (Some) newspapers take figures from intelligence spokespeople amend the intell to describe the people as 'identified Islamic extremists', then WP editors want to selectively report those sources 'beefing up' the figures and text even further. I'm sure intell authorities across Europe have an increasing number of people on their databases and have real difficulty spotting the dangerous. Turning that into a PoV commentary and claiming that govt. or intell authorities are saying things which they simply are not saying is truly astonishing. Anybody can go to 100s of news-sites to find hysterical, scare-mongering garbage, we don't need it here. Pincrete (talk) 08:29, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

The world's most renowned news agencies like AFP are now apparently "hysterical, scare-mongering garbage". Really hope admins take note of the views here by some of these users who are heavily involved in the disruptive (deletionst) edit-warring on this page. User2534 (talk) 21:56, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Veiled threats are unwelcome. Please remember that reporting breaking news, and initial reports, of fast moving situations, and holding them to be perma-fact, which is unchallengeable, is the very essence of what Wikipedia is against. There must be follow though, and remembering that Wikiepida is not a news site, and that it is not form listing indiscriminately. Information must be accurate, up to date, relevant, verified, and reliable. simply going AP said so or CNN said so or theBBC said so does not make it golden information which is sacrosanct. Sport and politics (talk) 22:27, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

"Information must be accurate, up to date, relevant, verified, and reliable." And the problem is? What you write otherwise is so subjectively relative and floating that it could be applied to any news source at your personal will. User2534 (talk) 23:03, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

And the problem is? What editors are adding bears little relationship to what the individual source says and what the individual source says is often not borne out by other, or later sources. One source implying that the world could be flatter than we thought doesn't make it flat, certainly not proven to be so. I don't believe any admin would conclude that I have been unreasonable in defending the accuracy of sources, whereas others seem wholly indifferent to inserting 'hysterical, scare-mongering garbage' which I describe thus because it bears little or no relationship to the text in the RS used. I know of no point in this thread where I have been inaccurate or distorted sources.

It is not mainly the sources which are being criticised by me in this thread, it is the careless and/or PoV manner in which those sources are being used. Pincrete (talk) 09:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 17 June 2017

I've closed the requested move discussion, so the template at the top of the article can be removed. The line is:

{{User:RMCD bot/subject notice|1=Islamist terrorism in Europe (2014–present)|2=Talk:Islamist terrorism in Europe (2014–present)#Requested move 29 May 2017 }}

—Guanaco 12:26, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:33, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 17 June 2017

"military campaing" in the 4th paragraph. Campaing should be spelled campaign. Andy1644 (talk) 18:49, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:08, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Remaining Issues

Rather than giving this article even more cleanup tags, let's discuss here any issues that remain. I rewrote most of the text in the article, and while I did not do additional research on the facts, I put it in a neutral point of view the best I could. And please do not take out swaths of material without discussing it here. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐁT₳LKᐃ 13:29, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry the biggest problem here is PoV and Synth, lack of criteria is also a problem, but it is foolish to pretend that a few superficial changes to the first para even begins to address the bigger issues. I've restored the main cleanup tags. Pincrete (talk) 13:49, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I edited all the text in the article, not just the first paragraph. Please list specific issues (or fix them yourself) so we can work to fix them. Just labeling this article as 'bad' does not help it improve. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐁT₳LKᐃ 13:51, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

The opening sentence refers to "Islamic terrorist activity in Europe increased notably starting in 2014". None of the sources appear to support that, they talk about the recent activity, but not an increase. A lot of the remaining text seeks to explain an 'increase' which is never established in the first place. Indeed the Madrid train + Moscow theatre + Beslan + 2005 London tube attacks would tend to prove the opposite, numerically a large fall in the number of casualties from attacks in Europe. I don't want my synth in, but neither the sources nor simple maths supports the proposition of any increase post-2014, the 'pushing' of which seems to be half the point of the article. Pincrete (talk) 14:06, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I think it's safe to say there has been an increased number. That being said I took out all mentions of an increase. Someone else added back the NPOV tag and I'm wondering why that is? I think that tag is being misused. Anyway, I think the intro is as neutral as it can get but feel free to do more. What else is there? ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐁT₳LKᐃ 14:45, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Safe to say according to what source, according to whom?. There seems to be a serious forgetting of domestic terrorism, in the UK , and Spain, as examples, from the 70's, 80's 90's and 2000's. Simply because of hysteria in the media and the bastardisation of the meaning of terrorism. Terrorism must have a political aim, and be for the furtherance of that aim. Most if not all of these acts do not fall in that category, even if they are called terrorism. These acts are mere criminal acts carried out by criminals. Murder is a crime, killing a lot of people is mass murder. Mass Murder does not equal terrorism; Harold Shipman was not a terrorist, for example. These acts of killings are nothing more than organised crime in the same way the Camorra operate. The Camorra are not labelled as terrorists, they are labeled as organised crime. These acts or no different to that. The IRA and UVF, or ETA have been a massive issues in the UK and Spain respectively, and as such forgetfulness is rife on this article. How things are portrayed in the media with the medias own bias (and other pressures both financial, and rating/readers) is not going to always be a true reflection of now or that this is not a true reflection of historical comparisons. Sport and politics (talk) 15:23, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I took out all mentions of an 'increase.' If I missed any feel free to correct those as well. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐁT₳LKᐃ 15:35, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you I have removed as such from the introduction. Sport and politics (talk) 15:55, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more, Sport and politics - once again, see this for proof... El cid, el campeador, please stop removing tags from the article until it's agreed they should be removed. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:58, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

The tags are multiplicative and/or not true. Again, spamming tags because you do not agree is not GF. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐁT₳LKᐃ 15:59, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. Simply stating it doesn't advance your case, though. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:54, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

@Pincrete: I put European Migrant Crisis in quotes because I didn't want to be accused of anti-migrant POV. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐁT₳LKᐃ 15:38, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Original Research?

The attacks which were removed contained NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH. The Bosnia attack was sourced from Reuters and has its own WP article. You cannot remove attacks without reason or on a hunch. This is why the page was locked for a week. Please keep everything in until there is some sort of consensus to take out specific attacks. Further, the tagging IS EXCESSIVE. OR and Synthesis are the same thing in this instance, and the article is not out of date. Spamming tags to show you do not like an article is not good faith. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐁT₳LKᐃ 15:58, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

The Bosnia attack is not terrorism, the source explicitly does not say it is terrorism, and saying it is such is OR. The tags appear to have a consensus which is saying they are more than justified, it is not for one user to unilaterally declare that they are not. Also stating cannot remove on a hunch, that is tosh. You need to add with reliable source third party material, not weak flimsy single sourced breaking news reports. OR and Synthesis are not the same OR is saying x is y when it is not, or saying look I did this research and this is what X is. Synthesis is X = y there for y always is x instead of x=x and y=y. Synthesis is adding sources together to come up with a third thing in neither source. Sport and politics (talk) 16:24, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

This is circular. All of the cited attacks have articles, with many sources. The job of a list is not to provide all the information on an event, just to direct you to a place where you can learn more. 1 source is enough for inclusion on a list- many other sources are available. And no, the source does not say it is not terrorism. The only evidence of motive is what the attacker expressed-- which was an Islamic slogan. You can't possibly ask for more than that. One user is not unilaterally declaring anything, this list was made by many people, and information was added by multiple people since the article was unlocked. You are the one unilaterally doing anything. This is not BLP- you cannot just take out things which you have a hunch about. That is not how WP works. Your behavior on this article is and has been vandalism. You have been warned many times by many parties. Please talk before you delete. Please. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐁT₳LKᐃ 16:52, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

The only evidence of motive is what the attacker expressed-- which was an Islamic slogan. You can't possibly ask for more than that. As was noted above, List of Islamist terrorist attacks has an Edit Notice that specifically requires that a reliable source that states the attack is both terrorist and Islamist must be provided for any new entry, and it furthermore states that [u]nreferenced list items may be removed at any time. Is there any particular reason you can see that this should not also become the standard applied here? TompaDompa (talk) 18:38, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more, TompaDompa - once again, another editor is spelling out as clear as black and white why single sourcing and indiscriminate lists are not allowed, along with the need to remove and avoid all synthesis. Sport and politics (talk) 18:45, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

The only evidence of motive is what the attacker expressed-- which was an Islamic slogan. You can't possibly ask for more than that. 'Witnesses' claiming to hear Islamic slogans are often anon, but after last years Munich shooting CNN broadcast an interview with someone who claimed to be a Kosovar Muslim. The claim was repeated all around the world while official news was thin. When the full story finally came out, David Sonboly was probably a right-wing copy-cat trying to kill Muslim immigrants and the witness or reporter were either mistaken, or inventing news, discussion here. Something similar happened at Nice (not that I'm suggesting Nice wasn't Islamic, simply that the claims of hearing slogans were fairly demonstrably untrue and certainly never confirmed by police nor CCTV footage). Pincrete (talk) 19:27, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

The 'Zvornik' article makes clear that the motive is HIGHLY disputed, but the text here phrases it as a certainty. The 'Brussels 2017' (which I have removed twice today), will probably turn out to be Islamic given the 'style', but we aren't in the business of 'guessing'. No RS has so far drawn any link with Islam for that attack. Pincrete (talk) 19:48, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Full protection

I've fully protected this article for 1 month, as there is way too much reverting and not enough discussion. Talk it out -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 20:41, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Note for 21 July: I have sources to add where tags "citation needed" have been added in Counter-terrorism operations section. Wykx (talk) 20:47, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome to create an edit request, I have this page watched and will respond to them. They'll need consensus to be added of course -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 20:49, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 21 June 2017

Please remove the entry for 2015 Ankara bombings from the table at Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present)#List of attacks (the entry tagged with ). While there is some disagreement about whether attacks in Istanbul should be included in the list, there seems to be clear consensus not to include attacks in the parts of Turkey that are unambiguously in Asia. Thanks in advance. TompaDompa (talk) 22:20, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Endorse removal.Pincrete (talk) 05:43, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Done -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 08:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 22 June 2017

In the Counter-terrorism operations section, replace [citation needed] tags by relevant sources:
- For 'January 2015 anti-terrorism operations in Belgium': ;
- For '2015 Saint-Denis raid': ;
- For '2016 Brussels police raids': .
Wykx (talk) 04:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

References

Comment on 'January 2015 anti-terrorism operations in Belgium', the ref does not mention an injured attacker. The same problem exists on the article page and has been tagged by me. Beyond that I have no objection to using that source. Pincrete (talk) 08:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. I propose to replace the '1 suspect' by 0 in the 'injuries' column at the same time sources are added. Wykx (talk) 12:34, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

 All done I think — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:47, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Tone of discussions, commenting on contributors, making veiled threats, and assigning motives to other users

The poor behaviour needs to stop on this article. making of threats, commenting on contributors, and assigning motives to editors, must stop. Everyone needs to cool off.

Wikipeida as an encyclopedia is being ignored here. The following articles need to be read by all contributors before this circular points scoring ends in nothing being achieved. The overarching and founding first read for all must be:

1. The Five Pillars of Wikipeida:

Then users need to read all of the following:

1. Civility on Wikipeida
2. Neutral Point of View on WIkipeida
3. The notability for including events
4. The ban on original research
5. The requirement that everything be verified
6. The explicits of what Wikipedia is not:
   1. Wikipedia not being a place for personal thought or personal analysis in articles
   2. Wikipedia not being a collection of unverifiable speculation
   3. Wikpiedia not being a newspaper
   4. Wikipeidia not being a collection of indiscriminate information
   5. Wikipeida is not a battleground which some users are turning this page into

Finally and somewhat most importantly there must be a remembering that some of these events detail actions by people who are still alive. and simply being in prison or in hospital does not mean articles containing information about them need not conform to:

1. The notability of people guidelines; and
2. Wikipedia policy on information about living persons added to any Wikipedia article or page

Let's all calm down and actually follow the purpose of Wikipeidia as at the end of the day editors are here by choice and if editors want to do something outside of the scope of this encyclopedia please go ahead and do so. No one is forced to stay.

Sport and politics (talk) 09:23, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Entirely agree, hence the full protection - thank you all for your edit requests so far, I've done one and am waiting for some discussion on the other two. I'd recommend that any other admins who come along to help out with the requests take a moment to read through the discussions which have been taking place here, and make themselves familiar with the issues which caused the full protection to be implemented -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 10:23, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 22 June 2017

Content in the background section that was deleted due to some complaints that there were too few good sources have been rewritten by me to comply with all issues, as follows:

"The numbers of Islamic extremists have risen rapidly in recent years in Europe. In 2016, French Prime Minister Manuel Valls said that police and intelligence services were tracking 15,000 extremists in France. After the 2017 Manchester Arena bombing, British authorities and MI5 revealed they had 500 ongoing investigations into 3,000 individuals, with a further 20,000 having been "subjects of interest" in the past. The latter number was noted since the Manchester and Westminster attackers were only among "former subject[s] of interest." In Germany, the Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz (BfV) reported they had registered over 10,000 "radical Salafists" in 2017, double as many as had been registered by 2013. The Swedish Security Service (Säpo) said the number of Islamic extremists in Sweden had soared to "thousands" in 2017, up from 200 in 2010, which it said was "a new historic challenge," confirming that "some of these extremists may be planning terrorist attacks." User2534 (talk) 09:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

References

Some of this is a misrepresentation of the source material. The Swedish sources do state the section as written. That is though not the whole picture of what the articles go on to say. Source 9 as listed above states "while noting that only a handful were deemed able to carry out a terror attack". Source 10 states "But very few have both the desire and the ability to carry out actual attacks" Source 11 specifically uses the word may, and the word may does not confirm attacks will happen. Anyone may be planning anything. Can a translation of the German source in to English be provided so that verifiability of the source can be undertaken by all and not just those who understand German.

There needs to be some discussion of the sentence "with a further 20,000 having been "subjects of interest" in the past. The latter number was noted since the Manchester and Westminster attackers were only among "former subject[s] of interest." The phrase "former subject of interest" and "subject of Interest" is jargon, and has no real meaning, in the context above.For all it could mean they were racially profiled to simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time so showed up on a computer database. This needs more explanation before being included.

In relation to the sources on France. only one of the sources uses the word 'tracks' none specifically state 'Tracking" this appears to not be accurate reflection of the whole source. 15,000 is a number which appears in all three sources, but it appears to be being taken out of context in the above sentence.

These issues need addressing before it should be added to the article. Sport and politics (talk) 10:12, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Now you are just making problems up for the sake of causing disruption. If any of this are real concerns, please correct them if possible. User2534 (talk) 10:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

This does not even begin to answer the issues raised above. Sentence 1 uses a Swedish source to describe UK and Fr figures, UK sources do not describe the 23,000 figure as 'extremists', in fact the claim is contradicted by the later claim that the 20,000 were 'subjects of interest'. Which are they? These sources do not appear to support the claim that numbers have increased, except the Sw. ones. If you want to attribute the claim to 'the local', that would be a different matter, but of course it would have zero authority then. The sentence about Valls, completely misrepresents what he said as pointed out by Sp+Pol and by me previously. When the first few sentences are not remotely supportable, one doesn't feel like reading the rest. Pincrete (talk) 10:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

@User2534: This is a valid edit request, and considering the recent edit warring is a really good step towards sorting out the dispute in a civil manner. I won't tolerate comments here which attempt to undermine the dispute resolution which is going on. As far as I can see, Sport and politics is not making problems up for the sake of causing disruption -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 11:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, the problem now is that after taking note of the issues raised (some of which were valid and reasonable) I have gone through the sources and done my best to accurately represent what the sources describe, noting both the relevance and wording used. Still there seem to be an extreme attention to whatever detail in precise wordings which I honestly have problems undertanding what the problem is, and more importantly how it can be solved. The underlying theme from the two users that continues now seems to be disproving the very essence of what the sources describe in ways that seem nearly impossible to accomodate. If you can correct this please do, but the numbers are the numbers, I didn't make them up. User2534 (talk) 11:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

No, the problem is still that the sources you are citing are poor, imprecise, contradict themselves, or have been misrepresented, as pointed out above. The issues have been explained and outlined clearly by Pincrete and Sport and politics. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:09, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes. The BBC, Reuters, AFP, or "hysterical, scare-mongering garbage" as it is called here. User2534 (talk) 12:12, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

nb edit conflict Pincrete (talk) 12:15, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I've just noticed that the Telegraph figures (and Telegraph is strongest source here on UK figures), doesn't even say that the 20,000 are 'Islamic' figures. I don't have any objection to using the expression "subjects of interest", it is an (intentionally?) imprecise way of saying 'people whose names we've collected for one reason or another down the years, who it would be silly for us to delete and who include X people who we think are dangerous". What I object to is poor sources describing those 20,000 in 'beefed up' language that MI5 have never used and having that version put into WP voice. Pincrete (talk) 12:15, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

"subjects of interest" is truly incredibly "beefed up language", and of course as always your personal speculations in direct conflict with reliable sources are still more important than what reliable sources actually say (whichever word is used). User2534 (talk) 12:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

You appear to want to interpret "subject of interest" (which means what, exactly? The same thing in every jurisdiction? A scale from "someone whose name was flagged on a database" all the way to "suspected terrorist") to mean "suspected extremist or terrorist." It doesn't. And it's OR. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

It is literally spelled out by the sources even detailing the context, I haven't interpreted anything other than direct references. User2534 (talk) 13:01, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I never say, nor imply, that The BBC, Reuters, AFP, are "hysterical, scare-mongering garbage", also I record the opposite of "subjects of interest" is truly incredibly "beefed up language", namely, that this term is "(intentionally?) imprecise" and does not mean what individual editors want it to mean. Pincrete (talk) 09:02, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

It appears clear the information as it currently stands does not reach the a community standard for inclusion and it seems futile to keep going over this issue. The community standards for inclusion are by consensus not being met. Better sourcing and better wording are needed before this can be included. Simply going round in circles with one side going but it is in the source, and the other side going the source does not portray that is pointless and unconstructive. It is time to move to a different area of issue with the article and come back to this when the issues pointed out with the proposed edit are addressed fully by the user calling for the inclusion of the information. Sport and politics (talk) 14:01, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Attacks in France and UK

Re summary section para 1:

During this period, France has been a top European target, with 19 attacks between December 2014 and April 2017; source 4 this included the January 2015 Île-de-France attacks, the November 2015 Paris attacks, and the July 2016 Nice truck attack. The United Kingdom saw a rise in terrorist activity in early 2017, with three major attacks carried out in a span of four months (see the 2017 Westminster attack, the May 2017 Manchester Arena bombing, and the June 2017 London Bridge attack). Other notable targets in Europe have included the Belgium, Germany, and Russia. The trans-continental city of Istanbul also saw both bombings and shootings, including in January 2016, June 2016 and January 2017.

As previously pointed out by me above, much of this para is OR. The used Guardian ref actually says 8 attacks in France in the 18 months from Jan 2015 (Hebdo) to July 2016 (Normandy church), the other 11 attacks are not supported by the ref used, though I have seen BBC sources referring to either 2/3 since then, but 11 more is not supported by any RS I've seen. There may be other accounts of how many in what period and I have no strong feeling of which figure is used beyond using the best source(s). Since it may well be the case that sources do not wholly agree on numbers of attacks, or may discount 'failed' or trivial or disputed ones, we should perhaps attribute.

Nor is 'top European target' supported, though it probably could be, though I don't see the need for such 'comparatives'. Ditto 'rise' in UK, the same thing could be said more succinctly either by omitting the comparison, or saying when the previous incident was (Rigby or 2005).

Lastly, do we need the 'majors' and 'notables'? If they weren't significant we shouldn't be mentioning them in the summary. Pincrete (talk) 14:36, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I think it can be removed from the article. I'm afraid that we will see a lot of bloody attacks in Western Europe, Russia and Turkey. Each time expanding of this section will be moral dilemma. Moreover, we do not have criteria for identifying major or minor attacks.--TonyaJaneMelbourne (talk) 12:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Casualty tallies in infobox

We need to decide whether or not to keep these, and if we do, how to keep them as accurate as possible.

I would prefer that they be removed (or at the very least, the layout be changed substantially to fix the issues detailed below), for a number of reasons:

1. I find them to be distasteful. It looks like a scoreboard to me. Mind you, this does not carry any real weight as an argument. It's just my opinion.
2. This is not a war, nor really a well-defined conflict at all. As such, the "belligerents" are extremely poorly defined, and very much a case of apples and oranges. This would be incredibly obvious if we, as is standard with battles and wars, added (or rather, tried to add) their respective "strengths".
3. The casualties themselves are also very "apples and oranges"-y, both within categories and between them. Counting civilians as losses for one side and militants for the other is both strange and inappropriate. Furthermore, listing in addition to one side's fatalities their injured and to the other side's fatalities their arrested is also strange and inappropriate. I'd also argue that grouping civilian and law enforcement casualties together is strange, that grouping ISIL/al-Qaeda/Taliban/Lone wolves together without distinction is strange, and that grouping casualties from different countries that aren't necessarily allies together might be.
4. The figures are almost certainly going to be inaccurate if we keep full precision (i.e. if we don't do any rounding). This is in part due to our not being able to guarantee exhaustiveness, in part due to the sources (especially when it comes to injuries – methodologies may vary wildly, e.g. with regards to whether only hospitalised injured people are counted or if people who were treated at the scene are also included). This could be ameliorated (but not outright fixed) by rounding the figures down to the nearest ten or hundred (or whatever is most appropriate) and adding "at least" before the figures.
5. Most importantly, WP:CALC states that Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources. I dispute that these summations are "obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources" (much as a result of the above points). As such, they would be in violation of WP:OR.

If we do decide to keep the totals, I would suggest that an edit notice be added to the effect of "When adding or removing entries, make sure to also update the casualties in the infobox." I'm inclined to think that it would be too much of a hassle to keep it accurate for it to be worth the bother, though. TompaDompa (talk) 22:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree calling it a war, portraying it as a war and having the layout of the article as such is not good. It is a clear violation of WP:CALC as mentioned. I would like to go further and on the basis of the point above get rid of this being portrayed as a war with some start date in 2014, which is clearly arbitrary, and without good reason as the start date. there is no start date, and having the 2014 start date makes it come across as if there was some declaration of all this which there was not. This is largely a fail of OR and a lack of sourcing. there is no consensus on this being laid out the way it currently is, and the reasons above are a good starting point for why this needs rectifying, as set out by TompaDompa Sport and politics (talk) 23:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Agree completely with both, the whole 'war' portrayal is confusing and misleading. Pincrete (talk) 06:06, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Re 'Injured', there is no consistent method of calculating of these. At Nice, a figure of around 100 treated immediately became nearly 500 in the fortnight following the attack, what one suspects are multiple 'sprains and bruises' which people chose to delay treatment for. At other attacks, the figure we list is those immediately hospitalised, ignoring later need for treatment. The distinction is often, but not consistently, made on articles between critical/non-critical injuries, but overall we are lumping together dis-similar things, which makes the figures a bit pointless. Pincrete (talk) 07:41, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I would keep the counter because it's one measure of the effect of 'Islamic terrorism in Europe(2014–present)'. We had also some discussion on Talk:List_of_ongoing_armed_conflicts on whether it's a conflict or not. And now we have included it as a conflict as mentioned by UCDP. The question was really around the fact that the attacks are organized or not. With the pattern since 2014, we came to the conclusion they are linked with the same allegiances. 2014 is really when ISIL came first in allegiances part of the attacks in Europe. @TompaDompa: I don't understand your points on casualties grouping. How would you group them? We have clearly two sides of the conflict. And finally, figures should be based on sources, with low range-high range if needed. Wykx (talk) 10:12, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Forgive the inquiry here this is a genuine question and is not ascription of any motive or anything else, but who are "we", and what is the relevance of the link. I cannot fathom out either.

I would argue that casualty number should only come from official sources, and even then it does not mean it is a reliable number. including the number is just far too subjective..

I would also dispute that there are two sides. there are criminals here, which are generally one sided, and some organisations which are "one side". I am though not entirely sure who the other side are meant to be. Entire nation states or the general public do not count, as there is no evidence to support that other than saying "well it's obvious" or "surely it is they said they are against them" and that is only an opinion. By that logic the whole world is in conflict itself everyday. which is clearly an unsustainable position.

In all I would remove and adding up of "casualty figures" remove this being a conflict remove the arbitrary start date, remove the non-notable criminal activity, remove the all material where the sourcing is either non-existent or questions, and probably in the long run merge this with the terrorism in Europe article. This is not good enough to stand on its own as an article. Sport and politics (talk) 10:38, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that it is meaningful to treat this as an 'armed conflict', and no sources do so AFAIK, however many of the problems with the article arise from trying to do just that. A few years ago Hollande made a speech saying 'we are at war' (approx.), this used to be quoted in the lead. His use was clearly rhetorical, like 'war on drugs', 'war on poverty' etc. and no one treats these attacks as a war in the ordinary sense. The start date is arbitary from our point of view, but not arbitary if you start out from a presumption that a 2014 call from ISIL is the catalyst for everything we have seen in Europe since, which most commentators don't AFAI can see, but which I suspect was the original raison d'etre for the list. Pincrete (talk) 11:59, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

@Wykx: And now we have included it as a conflict as mentioned by UCDP. You keep using that source. I do not think it says what you think it says.

• It does not list Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Austria, Italy, or Albania as being involved in any conflict at all.
• It does not list the United Kingdom, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Spain, Macedonia, or Serbia as being involved in any conflict with fatalities since 2014.
• The events that it lists that are also on this article do not all belong to the same conflict. I have identified four different ones, though there may be more.

1. The Nice truck attack, the November 2015 Paris attacks, the 2016 Brussels bombings, and the 2016 Berlin attack (along with several others) belong to a conflict called IS - Civilians.
2. The 2015 Saint-Denis raid, the 2016 Brussels police raids, and the 2016 stabbing of Charleroi police officers belong to a conflict called Government of Iraq - IS.
3. The 2016 Shchelkovo Highway police station attack (and quite a few other events in Russia) belongs to a conflict called Government of Russia (Soviet Union) - IS.
4. The January 2016 Istanbul bombing belongs to a conflict called Government of Turkey - IS.

• Note that none of these conflicts began in 2014, and none of them are limited to Europe.

In summary, the UCDP does not remotely include Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present) as a conflict.

With the pattern since 2014, we came to the conclusion they are linked with the same allegiances. [...] You did, and that was WP:Original research. You came to that conclusion all by yourselves. Moreover, you misrepresented a source as verifying an assertion it in fact did not.

I don't understand your points on casualties grouping. How would you group them? We have clearly two sides of the conflict. I dispute that there are clearly two sides. That sounds like pure WP:Original research to me. Going by the UCDP, there are at least four parties (ISIL, Russia, Iraq, Turkey), not counting civilians. I assume you mean something along the lines of ISIL on one side and Anti-ISIL forces on the other, but it's not obvious to me who should be included in the latter category if that's the case. The way I would group the casualties might be kind of like the way it's done over at The Troubles, which lists:

• State security forces (listed separately from one another) as belligerents
• Paramilitary groups (listed separately from one another)as belligerents
• Civilians as non-belligerents

That way, each country would have its own entry for law enforcement casualties (assuming there are any), each terrorist allegiance (ISIL, al-Qaeda, the Taliban, lone wolves) would have its own entry for their casualties, and civilians would be listed entirely separately. TompaDompa (talk) 16:40, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Brussels attack (june 20th 2017): edit request

The federal prosecuter has stated that, contrary to early things stated, the killed attacker dit NOT have a suicide vest. After de bombing largely failed, he ran towards a soldier and he was then shot. I posted a link from CNN as source here. de Zwetlandse Wikipediaan (talk) 08:04, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

References

@Ycleymans: Please use an edit request template to make this request -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 09:20, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Removal of "The Netherlands" in section "Belligerents"

The Netherlands is listed under Belligerents, even though it's not mentioned anywhere in the article and has not suffered any attacks. Therefore I do not see its purpose in Belligerents. 217.103.95.118 (talk) 08:24, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

There is discussion above (Casualty tallies in infobox), about whether ANY of the infobox is apt, given that this is not a military conflict in the usual sense. Pincrete (talk) 09:22, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

That's a slight exaggeration on your part, but whatever. In the meantime, this should be wholly uncontroversial. I made an edit request. TompaDompa (talk) 11:00, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 23 June 2017

Please remove The Netherlands from the "Belligerents" in the infobox, as it is not mentioned anywhere else in the article and has not suffered any attacks (as noted above). This should be wholly uncontroversial. TompaDompa (talk) 10:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Done -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 11:02, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

AfD

Since there now seems to be consensus among the few active users remaining on this page, and the consequently gradual withdrawal of almost any dissenting views, I think the solution at this point must be to nominate this article for deletion. At this point this is the consensus per discussion above, and a nomination will get my full endorsement. User2534 (talk) 13:36, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

An AfD discussion while there's an ongoing RfC on scope seems to me like jumping the gun something fierce. TompaDompa (talk) 13:56, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, let's see what the RFC outcome is. Personally, though, I'm not seeing much reason for the existence of this article except to promulgate some OR and Synth, which has now been toned down, and most of the contents already exist, usually better sourced, in List of Islamist terrorist attacks. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:03, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Previous merge discussion here. Pincrete (talk) 14:18, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

• Except that this is the second time in the last 3 days that I have attempted to upgrade the article with sources supporting the idea that there has been a wave of terrorism since 2014, a wave that has received WP:SIGCOV, only to find that that page is protected form editing. It is disingenuous to claim that we hsould move toward deletion without allowing editors to upgrade the article. To be clear, I am not blocked individually, this is some sort of blanked block.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:50, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
• Article I intended to source to stated "The death toll jumped dramatically from four people killed by terrorists in Europe in 2014 to 151 in 2015 (the year of the Bataclan), and then 142 in 2016 (including the 87 killed in Nice on Bastille Day)."[9]. Just tag it for improvement.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:04, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Which is cherry picking. Why not pick a year from the recent past when the IRA, ETA and the Red Brigade were operating and compare the much smaller number of attacks to 2014-present? We've been discussing this on the page already - see the last few comments (and the links contained therein) here. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:40, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

France had an extremely bad 2 years from 2015 - Autumn 2016, nobody disputes that. But where are the sources saying that this represents a general trend across Europe or that this trend continues into the present? Even if a few exist, do the preponderance of good RS come to that conclusion? I think not. The BBC in Autumn 2016 concluded exactly the opposite, even allowing for the very high figures in France that year The number for Western Europe is 143, which is lower than many years in the 1970s. The recent UK attacks are horrific, but they are the first there since 2005 and do not even begin to approach the normal annual average deaths in the UK during "the troubles". Many things may have changed in recent years, including the role of the internet, but it necessitates extremely selective reporting of sources to claim that there is "a wave of terrorism", a term which appears to be your own invention, not one applied to this period by the bulk of sources. … … … ps none of us can edit, get consensus for your additions per normal editing practice. Pincrete (talk) 19:53, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm doing my best to stay out of this article because it causes people to act irrationally, but good lord. It's OR/Synth? ? Wouldn't every single list on WP be OR/Synth by that logic? Yes. Lists are NOT the ten commandments, they are not set in stone-- they are editor-created compilations of information. I used List of Islamist terrorist attacks to add some attacks to THIS list, but they were reverted because apparently it was not well sourced or it was OR or something. Seemingly there are a lot of WP editors who think that the very IDEA of this article is Islamophobic, but that's absurdist POV. A way to support your hopes of deleting this article are not continuously blanking content and removing context so that no article remains. People are being so irrational about this article and are asking for burdens of proof which are unobtainable and illogical. It's a sort of systematic white-washing/rose-colored glass which is trying to convince WP that islamic terrorism is not happening. And it doesn't matter if there were more of less attacks from 2014 to present than there were in 1970. If there was one, there can be an article about it. There is literally no basis for deletion other than WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐁT₳LKᐃ 19:09, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposed redirect

• The more I think about it, the more I come to realize that the independent, novel, notable, article supporting phenomenon on which we should have an article is the international series of ISIS-related attacks that began in the spring of 2014, the year the "Islamic State" declared itself a "caliphate" in Syria. I suggest that we redirect this article to International ISIS attacks or similar, and use the work already put into this article to create that one , pruning as necessary.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:36, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
• Here: is CNN: ISIS goes global: 143 attacks in 29 countries have killed 2,043 [10]. A 2015 Europol report entitled Changes in Modus Operandi of Islamic State Terrorist Attacks (available in pdf) is very good on the subject.

• Other sources that I happened on while considering the questions raised at this discussion include:
• Where ISIS Has Directed and Inspired Attacks Around the World New York Times [11]
• ISIS has pledged to attack China Next; Here's Why Foreign Affairs [12]
• Years of terror: Deadly attacks in Europe since 2014 The Irish Times [13]
• In Brussels, the first of the Syrian jihadis comes home to roost Times of Israel, [14].E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:16, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Propose redirect to Global ISIS terrorism International ISIS attacks.

Propose redirecting this to International ISIS attacks. The international series of ISIS-related attacks that began in the spring of 2014, the year the "Islamic State" declared itself a "caliphate" in Syria, is a notable topic. A small sample of the sources that can be used to support such an article, which would include lists and incorporate relevant incidents form the current list, include:

• CNN: ISIS goes global: 143 attacks in 29 countries have killed 2,043 [15].
• A 2015 Europol report entitled Changes in Modus Operandi of Islamic State Terrorist Attacks (available in pdf) very good on the subject.
• Where ISIS Has Directed and Inspired Attacks Around the World New York Times [16]
• ISIS has pledged to attack China Next; Here's Why Foreign Affairs [17]
• Years of terror: Deadly attacks in Europe since 2014 The Irish Times [18]
• In Brussels, the first of the Syrian jihadis comes home to roost Times of Israel, [19].E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:36, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Well the Irish Times lists 11 attacks in the whole of Europe from 2014-2016, which is considerably under our 19 for the same period. The Irish Times doesn't describe most of them as connected with ISIS, indeed it doesn't even mention most of them as 'Islamic' at all, simply "deadly attacks by militants in Europe. So no, no chance, when the first source one reads doesn't even begin to support a proposal, one doesn't feel like looking at the others ...... (ps when did "International" start to mean around 8 named countries in Europe?).Pincrete (talk) 14:56, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

• The first source was CNN for a reason. I wrote "international" because I meant "Internaitonal - but "Global" would have been better. Changing that now.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:27, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

• Note that the CNN list includes multiple attack on every continent except for South America and Antartica. Note also that this topic is not covered in the main article Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, nor are there attacks presently goruped in an article or list that I can find, althoubh there are 22 countries in .E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:33, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I am not going to comment in detail on this proposal which is in my opinion hysteria. I just think it is an awful proposed development of the article, and a retrograde step. The article has more fundamental issues regarding if it should exist in the first place, and that is a matter or the RfC. This proposal belongs in the RfC as well. Sport and politics (talk) 17:54, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

nb edit conflict

The CNN article lists this as an ISIS attack, all UK sources and UK authorities concluded the perp was long-term mentally ill, so it does not inspire much confidence. Time and time again the CNN says 'The attack is believed to have been inspired by ISIS', believed by whom? However the main objection is that there is an RfC on the scope of this list, there is someone else suggesting deletion, now you want to completely alter the scope of this article. I believe there already are articles on the impact of ISIS on countries outside the middle East, so why the change is proposed is not clear. Pincrete (talk) 18:00, 26 June 2017 (UTC){{}}

I don't particularly share the view that this would be a step in the wrong direction, but I do agree that this is not the time. Wait for the results of the RfC. TompaDompa (talk) 18:56, 26 June 2017 (UTC)