Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks

2017 Westminster attack

Why is the 2017 Westminster attack not included in the list? --Stolp (talk) 11:35, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

See the various threads above--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:44, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

This attack satisfies the criteria for inclusion, I think - single source citing Islamist terrorism. Added for now, anyway. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:47, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Normally I would have added the incident myself, but as I'm new here and as I have seen that there was a discussion before, I wanted to understand whether a lobby tries for whatever reason to oppress some incidents which are in other parts of Wikipedia stated clearly as Islamist terrorist attacks. So the 2017 Westminster attack is of course in the list of Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present), and I would also add to the list here for the same reason June 2017 London Bridge attack. --Stolp (talk) 12:43, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

@Bastun: Unless there's something I missed, the source you added doesn't call this Islamist terrorism by a long shot. What it does say is we are treating this as a terrorist incident until we know otherwise. Islamism is not mentioned at all, nor is jihadism or even Islam (though the word "Muslim" is used once, namely in the sentence We must recognise now that our Muslim communities will feel anxious at this time given the past behaviour of the extreme right wing and we will continue to work with all community leaders in the coming days.). TompaDompa (talk) 13:27, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

@TompaDompa: Hope that with Independent news from 27 April 2017 everything is clear: "Muslim convert declared that he was waging jihad in revenge against Western military action in the Middle East" --Stolp (talk) 19:15, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Am I missing something? There are now (00:05 UTC) three sources, and none of the three describes the attack as Islamist terrorism or the attacker as an Islamist. Please read WP:No original research. We don't make our own conclusions based on what we think is most likely the case, or by squinting and "reading between the lines" of what the sources say. There has been no source cited describing it as Islamist terrorism, so why is the attack in the list? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:06, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

No, Malik Shabazz (and TompaDompa) - my bad, I misread the source I used. Self-reverted. (Just to note, TompaDompa, the 'ping' template doesn't seem to actually ping a user - at least, I'm not seeing a notification.) Stolp, apologies, there needs to be a single reliable source calling the attack Islamist terrorism. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:57, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Huh. Looking at the {{ping}} template documentation, it seems like the issue is that I added it to a comment I had already signed without signing it again (The notification will only work successfully if you sign your post in the same edit in which you use this template.). Good to know. TompaDompa (talk) 18:07, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, this list doesn’t make sense if some guys try to suppress major incidents which are commonly regarded as islamist terrorism. I will later include it again and I explain why: We had several occasions in Europe where lone-wolves committed this kind of crimes. Most prominent in Europe so far were 2016 Nice attack and 2016 Berlin attack. When I read the discussion on Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks/Archive 8# 2017 Manchester attack I am completely puzzled why there are still doubts whether the March 22, 2017 incident has to be included here. On March 22, 2017 and the following time the police speakers and the British press obviously were cautious to not label this incident as islamist in public. This happened in order to take care for the sensation of the muslims in Britain and to not stir up right wing minded people. I can understand this intention. If one reads this article from huffingtonpost. it is evident why the British still avoid the term islamist in public. And you can find the March 22, 2017 incident listed here in the express list of terror in Europe avoiding the term islamist, but all are obviously islamist terrorism. Anyway, there are sources which tell that London March 22, 2017 incident is regarded as an islamist terror attack. You can find this within Wikipedia and outside:

Inside Wikipedia the article 2017 Westminster attack can be found in categories Islamic terrorism in England and Islamic terrorist incidents in 2017. You can find the article also in Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present) and you can find the article listed in List of terrorist incidents linked to ISIL. On position 22 in the List of terrorist incidents in March 2017 you can also find the article, there labeled as Islamic terrorism in the West and linked to this list here! So it is even more crazy to not find it listed here. In the French speaking Wikipedia for example the corresponding Liste d'attaques terroristes islamistes includes of course Royaume-Uni: le 22 mars 2017.

If you look outside Wikipedia on reliable sources like for example:

• Times of India list from June 4, 2017: March 22, 2017: Investigators describe the lone-wolf attack as "Islamist related terrorism".
• New York Times from Aug. 17, 2017: Islamic extremists have carried out over a dozen deadly terror attacks in Western Europe since 2015, killing more than 330 civilians. This list of course also includes London incident on March 22, 2017.

So the evidence is there. But please, where is the source which clearly states why March 22, 2017 is definite no act of islamist terrorism, so that everybody can understand why it should be excluded in the list here? --Stolp (talk) 03:04, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, Stolp - nobody is trying to suppress anything. What you actually seem to be saying is "here is an interpretation for why none of the official sources describe this attack as Islamist terrorism, therefore let's bypass that requirement and the RFC on here and go with my interpretation." We won't be going down the rabbit hole of trying to prove a negative. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:28, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

The closest thing to a motive for the attack was this story in The Independent on 27 April. This said that Masood reportedly sent a WhatsApp message minutes before the attack, saying that he was "waging jihad in revenge against Western military action in Muslim countries in the Middle East" (not a direct quote of what he said, this wasn't revealed). The Westminster attack fits in with the pattern of lone wolf attacks, but isn't a convincing example of an attack planned by an organisation.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:30, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

This list doesn't define that the terror has to be related to an organization. We also list lone-wolves in case they are Islamist inspired. So, sorry that again I have to state that the interpretation to leave this incident away is wrong. We are by no means dependent on official views of any country of this world. If we would be dependent on the official views, we just could stop creating a free lexicon like Wikipedia in a lot of countries of this world. But we want to create a free lexicon and Wikipedians who work on specific themes should be (in an ideal manner) quite familiar with the matter where they want to contribute. Here we are talking about Islamist terrorists and if one reads carefully what I have written so far in this discussion can't really deny that March 22, 2017 was an incident which has to be part of this list. If a source like Independent tells that the attacker was waging jihad, then it is not original research to say that it was Islamist terrorism, but just other words for the same thing. And if Times of India two months later explicit writes that this was due to investigators an act of Islamist related terrorism then my experience let me conclude that it has to be included here. --Stolp (talk) 17:22, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm British and the British police and media have been wary of giving a clear reason for the attack, partly because Masood died during it and will never face charges. The main evidence about why he did it is the reported WhatsApp message. He was in many ways a small time loser who decided to go out with a bang. ISIL claims responsibility for the actions of people like this, but they are not professional terrorists.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:41, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm German and can recommend DW public international broadcaster. Their view here is another example, that it can't be wrong to list March 22, 2017 incident in this list. --Stolp (talk) 18:17, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

"This list doesn't define that the terror has to be related to an organization." Please actually read the recent RfC. "We also list lone-wolves in case they are Islamist inspired." No, we don't, we go by what official reports featured in WP:RS say. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:03, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Stolp, for bringing the DW article to my attention. It's not something I would have come across on my own. I find it interesting in what it says—and what it leaves unsaid. Please note that the attacker, Khalid Masood, is not described as an Islamist, nor is the attack described as Islamist. Instead, we are told that Masood "had recently lived in Birmingham, which commentators and researchers say has become a breeding ground for Muslim extremists" and he "also spent time in Saudi Arabia between 2005 and 2015". In other words, "we'll shadow and shade facts to make him appear like an Islamist, but we're not willing to put our reputation on the line and call him that in print."

Two of Wikipedia's three "core policies" are WP:Verifiability and WP:No original research. At their essence, they say that we add something to the encyclopedia because a reliable source says that it's true, not because we believe in our heart that it's true. And we don't "connect the dots" to draw conclusions that reliable sources have not drawn. The bottom line is this: If no reliable source is willing to call the Westminster attack an Islamist terrorist attack, or attribute it to known Islamists, it has no business in our list of Islamist terrorist attacks, no matter how much it resembles other Islamist terrorist attacks. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:20, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

The point that I'm trying to make is that the WhatsApp message is the only significant insight given by the British authorities into why Masood did it. He was known to the police for links to Islamic extremism but was not considered a major threat. The foreign media may have reported or interpreted things that the British authorities didn't actually say.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:23, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ianmacm: Thanks for your friendly comments which I appreciate

@Bastun: Sorry, I don’t want to be unfriendly and I do not want to educate or blame. I can see your long Wikipedia experience. So, I am the newcomer, but just want to help…

@Malik Shabazz: For me it sounds like hairsplitting to not recognize that jihadism and Islamist terrorism are quite the same. But o.k., some more reliable sources and hopefully no original research by me which might convince:

BBC reported on March 23, 2017 that Prime Minster Theresa May also said it was wrong to describe the attack as Islamic, claiming it was "Islamist terrorism - it's a perversion of a great faith".

If my English understanding is good enough, May distinguishes between Islamic and Islamist. This is good, and unfortunately not always done, even not in Wikipedia, but she clearly said the day after the attack that it was "Islamist terrorism". And that it was Islamist terrorism comes very clear some days later in The Daily Telegraph:

The Daily Telegraph has written on March 27, 2017 that the “Islamist behind the Westminster terror outrage was investigated by MI5 as part of a plot to blow up an Army base using a remote-controlled car”. So, the “Islamist” Khalid Masood alias “Adrian Ajao, 52, who killed four people, including a police officer in last Wednesday's attack, is understood to have been probed six years ago over alleged connections to four al-Qaeda-inspired terrorists.”

ARD terrorist expert Georg Mascolo explains in this report, unfortunately only in German, that the March 22, 2017 incident can be regarded as part of a new sequence of lone-wolf attacks like the 2016 Nice attack and the 2016 Berlin attack. These incidents are already part of our list here. So why should we exclude 2017 Westminster attack in case we can refer to those mentioned BBC and Daily Telegraph reports? --Stolp (talk) 20:41, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Stolp, for pointing out the article from The Daily Telegraph that described Masood/Ajao as an Islamist. That being the case, I withdraw my objection to including the Westminster attack in the list. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:46, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your discernment, Malik Shabazz. So I have included the incident again. --Stolp (talk) 23:38, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 October 2017

Eduard-Henri Avril (talk) 17:05, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 17:11, 1 October 2017 (UTC)