Jump to content

Talk:Islamic terrorism in Europe/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Orphaned references in Terrorism in Europe (2014–present)

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Terrorism in Europe (2014–present)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Cruickshank":

  • From Salah Abdeslam: Paul Cruickshank (23 March 2016). "Abdeslam likely had plans with ISIS cell behind Brussels attacks, official says". CNN. Retrieved 23 March 2016.
  • From 2016 Brussels police raids: Cruickshank, Paul (23 March 2016). "Abdeslam likely had plans with ISIS cell behind Brussels attacks, official says". CNN. Retrieved 23 March 2016.
  • From 2014 Tours police station stabbing: Cruickshank, Paul (16 November 2015). "Drumbeat of terror precedes slaughter that shocks France and the world". CNN. Retrieved 17 November 2015.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 07:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Apologies "Cruickshank' was my fault, I added two refs fom the article page (there were none here) improperly. I have now replaced with a better ref, also from the main article. (Well how does one talk to a bot?). Pincrete (talk) 02:23, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Maybe we will discover that in the Wikipedia there will be the first bot that passes the Turing test? Lets wait for an answer .... ;-) LucLeTruc (talk) 02:31, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Possible move? SYNTH/OR and source concerns

This who thing is mostly OR and currently relies on one single source. "Wave of terror" is used by GlobalNews (written by the AP) and that's the only RS to use that term. The other sources were not WP:RS. My first impulse is to nominate this for AFD... but I looked for sources per WP:BEFORE and see variations of the term used by some sources (sometimes just for France, sometimes Europe generally). USA Today mentions the phrase. The Pope referred to it for the whole world ([1]). In short, the sources and article are a mess.

"Wave of Terror" concerns me from an NPOV standpoint. It's catchy, but not exactly neutral sounding. Renaming the article something like Terrorist incidents in Europe in 2016 might be more appropriate to avoid issues with the phrase "wave of terror".

If we're to keep this, we need an RS explicitly saying each listed attack is part of this wave. And honestly I think we need more sources specifying that it's a European thing (and not a global or French one). A move to a more appropriate, larger scope article might be wise too. There are various lists like List of terrorist incidents in August 2016 which may work. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:37, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

This article is about the large number of (especially Islamist) terror attacks during 2015 and 2016. I think that worthy of an article. There are more terror attacks in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan etc. However, there are wars there - so that's to be expected. There are no wars in the EU. Jim Michael (talk) 20:09, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
The RT parallels the European "Wave of Terror" with US "911" [2], so it seems to have become the topic title (for now). Surely, this may change in retrospective, but for now "Wave of Terror" is the title, though surely should be disambiguated "in Europe" or "2015-present".GreyShark (dibra) 08:22, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
While I would not oppose a change of scope if there are sources to support it, I would be a bit wary of the geographic term "Western Europe". The relevant article points to several different definitions, which come with different inclusion standards. The United Nations Statistics' definition specifically includes only 9 countries (Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Monaco, Netherlands, Switzerland). The definition used by the regional voting bloc Western European and Others Group includes 24 states (including some in the Balkans). the definition used by the European Union involves all of its 28 member states, while another related definitions also includes the 4 remaining members of the European Free Trade Association (countries with legal and trade ties to the EU which are not actually interested in becoming member states). The definition used by the CIA includes Ireland, the United Kingdom, Spain, and Portugal, but specifically excludes Germany and anything to the east of France. Remember that the regions of Europe are often defined differently based on specific geographic, political, cultural, or religious ideas. Dimadick (talk) 06:33, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Of course there has been terror in Europe prior to this Wave of Terror, but the topic of this article is not "Terrorism in Europe" or "Islamic terrorism in Europe", but "Wave of Terror in Europe". "Wave of Terror" terminology seems to have been utilized widely by the media.GreyShark (dibra) 11:25, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Problem in table sorting

When sorting attacks by death, it ranks only by the first numeral (86, 4, 32, 2, 2, 2, 130, 12). I would love to fix this but don't know how. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:240:C603:48F0:21E:C2FF:FEAA:943C (talk) 20:29, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Ethem Aydin Orhon

I am removing this attack, given that the motive of this mentally ill assailant was revenge on the police, who had arrested him the day before for possession of a knife. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:07, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Unneccesary article

Isn't this information already covered well enough in the Terrorism in Europe article? Also if this article should exist it should have a less tabloidy title. --Ugly Ketchup (talk) 00:48, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Honestly, I find this article unnecessary and poorly sourced (besides being very similar to a previously deleted article). "Wave of Terror in Europe" is not the common name by which these events are known, and it doesn't make much sense to create a new article which merely duplicates content already included in lots of other articles, based on just a few newspapers which use this (generic) phrase, without adding much in-depth context. Europe has experienced much deadlier periods of terrorist activity in its recent history ([3]), but we don't have articles about those "waves", because historians don't call them so (for Italy, historians talk of Years of Lead (Italy)). I doubt historians will ever call this "wave of terror in Europe". In short, this appears to be WP:recentism. Since secondary sources don't commonly use the phrase "wave of terror in Europe", this article is also not susceptible to meaningful expansion, unless one applies original research to decide which attacks are part of the "wave" and which are not. It's clear that only jihadist attacks are intended to be part of it, even though EUROPOL still reports that separatist attacks, though less deadly, are still more common in Europe ([4]). For these reasons, I propose to merge all useful content into Terrorism in the European Union, e.g. in the "trends" section. We also have Islamic terrorism#Europe, which addresses the same trends. Nykterinos (talk) 15:13, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

The current title may not be the best, but there should be a separate article about Islamic terrorism in Europe. We already have Category:Islamic terrorism in Europe. Jim Michael (talk) 16:23, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Note, however, that there isn't any country or continent with a separate article about Islamic terrorism in that country or continent, despite Islamic terrorism being much more common in non-European countries. "Islamic terrorism in Country X" are all redirects which redirect either to "Terrorism in Country X" or to "Islamic terrorism#Country X". Nykterinos (talk) 16:48, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
I'd support this merge. I mentioned similar concerns below and would also support a page move for now if we can get the article into shape. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:41, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
The table, which has been added, is the exact copy of the table in Terrorism in the European Union, without any source listing all those attacks as belonging to a "wave of terror in Europe" (OR). Nykterinos (talk) 08:23, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Definitely pointless duplication, of an ill-defined term. Pincrete (talk) 10:18, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - per [5] which groups the events under "18 months of terror" table. Perhaps we can rename, but the January 2015 is clearly is a beginning of "Wave of Terror", which is a notable, widely referred topic, with frequent related mentions in the media [6],[7],[8],[9].GreyShark (dibra) 08:16, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose merging. It's not only in the sources, but it is a useful list/article.--Gerry1214 (talk) 11:24, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge I do support focusing article on Islamic terrorism, (not that the Red Army Faction has been blowing up may buildings lately.) I so see plenty of use of this Wave of terror phrasing:"Pope condemns 'wave of terror'" [10]; "the wave of terrorist attacks striking Europe"[11]; "the seemingly relentless wave of terror attacks Europe has suffered in recent weeks " " ; "The Wave of ISIS Terror Attacks Is a Mark of Weakness—Not Strength" [12]. I see no reason to merge. Article needs expansion beyond mere list.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:03, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
the question is not how many sources are within this article, but how many source are there utilizing "Wave of terror" of "Terrorism wave" etymology in regard to recent attacks in Europe.GreyShark (dibra) 11:22, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
The reason for merging is that this article, as it stands, doesn’t add anything meaningful to what is already included in Terrorism in the European Union, and the scope of this separate article is unclear. Nykterinos (talk) 13:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose but needs a rename: 3rd party sources do not use the name "Wave of Terror" and it does not sound very encyclopedic/neutral for Wikipedia to give the phenomenon such a specific name. To build on the proposal of the OP - Islamic terrorism in Europe - I would suggest a slight rewording assuming the article would focus on terrorism in the EU/EEA, and not so much on terrorism in Russia and Turkey. Morgengave (talk) 11:45, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support This small article - more than half of which is a copied part of a table - is in my view redundant, and could in part be split into Islamic terrorism#Europe and Terrorism_in_the_European_Union#2004_-_present:_Islamic_radicalism - the latter of which needs more text. Besides, the rather emotive title "Wave of Terror in Europe" seems to force through a not very common phrase just because wikipedia maybe needs a article title that is catchy, but perhaps not as descriptive - somehow similar to the 'Great Recession'. - Ssolbergj (talk) 06:52, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Besides the Capitalization of Everything, the title should be renamed because it's untrue (also)... if Wikipedia's articles were renamed according to newspapers' headlines then they'll all be propaganda clickbait. -- Mentifisto 01:11, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Redundant article utilising a non-neutral, seemingly invented term to present subjects adequately covered already under a sensationalised heading. I also note that though several sources use the term, none of them defines it, when, where, what is therefore either to be included or excluded from the list? When did the 'wave start? Since there is no objective definition of the term, are editors going to subjectively decide which incidents to include, or how decide? Are we simply going to know that the 'wave' is over when journalists tire of the term? Pincrete (talk) 11:27, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose The article is about a particular time-period which has seen a strong surge of attacks. Article seem to also have been expanded heavily with both prose and incidents after many of the comments were made above concerning lack of content. A rename might be appropriate. User2534 (talk) 10:06, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Support I think a merge or change in title would be appropriate, especially since the title "Wave of Terror in Europe" is not specific to its content. Because this article is essentially two paragraphs declaring that there is an increase in terrorism in Europe and a list of terrorist attacks, it would (in my opinion) be appropriate to merge it with Terrorism in Europe. If not, at least a title change should be made, as "Wave of Terror in Europe" definitely break some POV rules for titles; it sounds like a newspaper or tabloid cover title. CentreLeftRight ✉ 06:41, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - this proposal is long overdue, with merger tags already removed from the articles a couple of months ago.GreyShark (dibra) 06:49, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 21 December 2016

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: moved to Terrorism in Europe (2014–present). (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 04:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)


Wave of Terror in Europe → European terrorism wave (2014–present) – More encyclopedic title. Ugly Ketchup (talk) 01:48, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Support Current title appears to be a Wikipedia creation of a proper noun from a description in the sources. Change to Terrorism in the European Union (2015-6) or something similar. There is no need to qualify it as a: wave, outbreak, phenomenon, crisis... or any other such editorialized description. TimothyJosephWood 20:10, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
European countries exist outside the union. The date should be open ended to "-present" since its ongoing and 2017 is about to start. I could support Terrorism in Europe 2014-present in addition to my alt choice using "outbreak". It's not editorialized if the sources support the title (which I have not looked closely at). -- GreenC 05:05, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Suggest merge (of this WP:POVFORK) to Terrorism in Europe. Widefox; talk 23:23, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Present title is awful for reasons given in the merge discussion above. Currently the list and text is solely Islamic terrorism. Is that a conscious choice? If so the title should reflect that. Are 'suspected/foiled' plots a proper inclusion? Even 'minor' arrests on suspicion? The lead text should set out clearly what the criteria for inclusion are, rather than or before discussing current (mainly ISIS?) threat. I spent several hours recently removing 'allegiance' labels (usually Islamic State), where neither the source nor the linked article even mentioned ISIS/ISIL/IS. I left it whenever one of these three was mentioned as a possible allegiance and/or possible inspiration. I also changed prev. column heading 'perpetrators' to current 'allegiance', since in most cases the orgs seem to be inspiration for, rather than active participants in the acts/plots. Therefore the current 'Allegiance' column is more properly 'Alleged/possible allegiance' rather than an established fact. I got bored checking sources and linked articles half-way down the list, but at present this list appears to be a magnet for guesswork/synth and over-simplification of what is known. I've also removed several incidents in which 'terrorism' is not even mentioned in the source or linked article, though left some where the 'official' position is that the incident was simply a standard crime, but terrorism is speculated about in sources, but again got bored. I have no strong feeling as to what the criteria for inclusion should be, except criteria should be clear and text clear as to whether an incident is confirmed as a terrorist act or simply speculated as possibly such. Pincrete (talk) 21:21, 22 December 2016 (UTC) ..... Addendum:According to The Guardian, eight attacks occurred in France within "eighteen months of terror" from January 2015 to July 2016 is in the lead, we currently have 15 in France in the same period. WP editors clearly know something the Gdn doesn't, and at the moment most are written in WP:Voice, not as attributed 'possibles'.Pincrete (talk) 12:42, 23 December 2016 (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.

Secondary move

User:SSTflyer This is by way of a courtesy message since you closed the recent move discussion. I ameded the lead to match the title, User:Asarlaí, partially reinstated, under the quite reasonable logic that all the content concerns Islamist terrorism. Therefore I moved the page to make title and content 'tally'. i trust the move is not controversial to either of you. Pincrete (talk) 02:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Its still not perfect. There has been quiet some islamic terrorism in Europe before 2014 (mainly Al Quaida) and limiting this here to >2014 seems rather artificial. So it would make sense to either limit this to ISIS terrorism or include it into a more general European islamic terrorism article. The whole article, however, is really poor quality and i am doubtful that this list of terror incidents ever evolves into something with encyclopedic value. I have no motivation to put too much work into this, my concern was just to delete all these incorrect OR terror attributions to non terror events but in my eyes this list has a long way to go to evolve into something like a decent article. LucLeTruc (talk) 02:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
There actually is a merge block in Terrorism in Europe regarding this. And a nearly identical list here Terrorism in Germany (with regards to Germany). There seem to be quiet some friends of lists around. All of these articles are in serios need for factual content other than just lists.LucLeTruc (talk) 02:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
LucLeTruc, there are various merge possibilities discussed above, but discussion seems to have stalled. Pincrete (talk) 02:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
You are right. I am out of this mess however. Easiest solution would be to rename to "ISIS inspired terrorism in Europe". The style of attacks is quiet different to the former Al Quaida terrorism. I personally see not too much value in these lists, so the biggest shortcoming of this article is the serious lack of content and background. LucLeTruc (talk) 03:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
'ISIS inspired' wouldn't work, as some incidents have other, or no known affiliations. Yes, it's very boring clearing up very tenuous (or no), connection to terrorism or Islamism. I have no fixed opinion other than that the text and lead should state clearly what the claimed connection is and who made the claim. I supported a merge, but others want the article to stand alone (sigh). Pincrete (talk) 17:22, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

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)

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:

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)

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)

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: [13]. User2534 (talk) 17:29, 29 May 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)

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.

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:c7d:26a0:4a00:cd0f:b225:e1b6:47c2 (talk) 12:33, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Scope and inclusion criteria

Proper RfC started below. TompaDompa (talk) 02:51, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

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

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.

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)

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. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮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. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮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." BastunĖġáḍβáś₮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. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮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".

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. ;-) BastunĖġáḍβáś₮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)

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... BastunĖġáḍβáś₮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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Islamic_terrorism_in_Europe/Archive_1&oldid=1084071140"