Talk:Islamic terrorism in Europe/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Help with the plots

hi TompaDompa, I have filled in a couple of the plots with the dearth of sources to be found in the linked articles. Could you help filling in the rest? 1Kwords (talk) 12:18, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

I'll work on it, but the problem is that this kind of mop-up operation shouldn't even have to happen, ever. The entries shouldn't have been added without sources in the first place. TompaDompa (talk) 16:11, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

That's a very confrontational attitude, but enWP is a collaborative effort and a WP:WORKINPROGRESS. There is simply nothing wrong with improving a halfway effort. 1Kwords (talk) 07:57, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Indeed there isn't, but I wouldn't characterize unsourced additions on a controversial (and potentially WP:BLP) topic as a halfway effort. WP:V and WP:NOR (and yes, WP:BLP when applicable) are official Wikipedia policies, not mere suggestions. Sourced additions are a completely different matter. TompaDompa (talk) 19:38, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Which WP:RS says this topic is controversial? In what way is it controversial? If you have a source for that, it could be used to add info to the article. 1Kwords (talk) 08:47, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

From terrorism:

Being a charged term, with the connotation of something "morally wrong", it is often used, both by governments and non-state groups, to abuse or denounce opposing groups.

Furthermore, WP:LABEL says Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. WP:TERRORIST even redirects there. TompaDompa (talk) 12:10, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

For this specific context, for a controversy to exist, there has to be a dispute. Which instutions or experts have disputed that, say, the Madrid train bombings, the Charlie Hebdo attacks or the Mumbai-style attacks in Paris are terrorism? Is there a general controversy about Islamic terrorism in Europe about whether it is, indeed, terrorism or something else? 1Kwords (talk) 06:59, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps the additions to the plot section was slightly less than a halfway effort, but still more constructive than mere tag & delete campaigns, those are minuscule efforts. 1Kwords (talk) 07:04, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

References

investigation in manchester

Find Reuters link here. 1Kwords (talk) 09:06, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

The attack in Manchester seems to be Islamist in motive, judging by the words of the attacker himself. It seems at this point to be strikingly similar to the Leytonstone attack in 2015. We're yet to see but if he is deemed mentally ill then in the same way as the aforementioned attack it would appear to be a case of Islamist terrorism carried out by an individual with mental health problems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClementineAssault (talk • contribs) 16:57, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

There's a standalone article: Manchester Victoria stabbing attack as often happen with stabbings at major transportation hubs. In the 2008 Exeter attempted bombing, a man with mental problems was radicalized by militants. Mental health problems do not rule out an Islamist motive. Time will tell for the Manchester stabbing. 1Kwords (talk) 09:06, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Plot on german airports

Dutch link further details Histogenea22 (talk) 13:41, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

10,000 militant salafists in Germany?

User:1Kwords, this text, which was removed by myself (with TD's assistance) and then restored by you "German authorities estimated that there were more than 10,000 militant salafists in the country." is simply not supported by the source (s).

The source used says "For the first time more than 10,000 Salafists in Germany" It then goes on to describe Salafism as highly conservative and often linked to militancy and Islamism - another source claims that most/nearly all German Islamist terrorist groups have a greater or lesser degree of linkage to Salafist groups or ideas. All this may well be true - but it is pure synth to go from 10,000 Salafists plus Salafism is often linked to militant extremism, to the used text. German intelligence authorities were clearly concerned about the rise in numbers linked to ideologies which correlate highly with Islamism and violent action. But the text used is pure synth - nowhere does it support the claim nor does any source claim that ALL salafists are 'militant' - whatever that means in this context, but which is the implicit conclusion of the text used.

My main point is that the source simply doesn't come anywhere near to supporting the text - but also why does the text refer to 'German authorities', when what is meant is the German internal intelligence service, and why is no indication given as to the context in which the intel sevice made this claim? Was it some sort of public report or what? Pincrete (talk) 11:38, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to note that I removed it in September 2017 for similar reasons. TompaDompa (talk) 13:20, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Found it Per BfV: Die Mehrzahl der Salafisten in Deutschland sind keine Terroristen, sondern politische Salafisten. Andererseits sind fast alle in Deutschland bisher identifizierten terroristischen Netzwerkstrukturen und Einzelpersonen salafistisch geprägt bzw. haben sich im salafistischen Milieu entwickelt. almost all terrorists and terrorist networks are strongly influenced by salafism (salafistisch geprägt) and have developed in Salafist circles (sich im salafistischen Milieu entwickelt). Perhaps this is what the article should say? 1Kwords (talk) 20:58, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

At any rate, the article shouldn't say that there are 10 000 militant Salafists, considering that the BfV says Die Mehrzahl der Salafisten in Deutschland sind keine Terroristen, sondern politische Salafisten. (The majority of the Salafists in Germany are not terrorists, but political Salafists). I removed it. We could add what the BfV says about Salafism, but I think that's a better fit for Terrorism in Germany. TompaDompa (talk) 05:01, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I think it's within the scope of both this article and Terrorism in Germany. Germany is in Europe. The term in German for "dangerous person" is Ge­fähr­der, could be useful for searching for sources. Why should the information only be in the Terrorism in Germany article, an article this article doesn't even link to? 1Kwords (talk) 21:21, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

It's not outside of the scope, but it is kind of a poor fit. I see both a specific issue with this content and a general issue with this type of content. The specific issue is that the information itself (almost all known terrorist networks and individuals in Germany have links to Salafism) is fundamentally about terrorism in Germany, not about Islamist terrorism, in the same way as information about the proportion of Catholics in Mexico would fundamentally be about religion in Mexico, not about Catholicism.

The general issue with country-specific info is one that ties into the issue with this article's scope – why is this article about Islamic terrorism in Europe, specifically? The conceit is that it is in some way meaningful to look at the region of Europe as a singular entity. Otherwise, it's just an arbitrary collection of disparate topics, and if that's the case this article does not have a valid raison d'être (at least not with its current scope). If a country-specific pattern or trend applies to the entire region, then the latter is what should be on this article. If it doesn't, it doesn't belong here at all (except in certain select cases, such as when a country is the sole exception). TompaDompa (talk) 16:24, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

References

Protection

Why is the article extended protected? I checked the protection log but did not get a clear answer? 97.90.47.253 (talk) 14:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Arrests in Frankfurt March 2019

Arrests have been made in Frankfurt for individuals suspected of a Mumbai-style attack. Saving source here for later research. https://www.dw.com/en/german-prosecutors-arrest-10-suspects-over-islamist-attack-plan/a-48028985 1Kwords (talk) 11:42, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Any idea why this is omitted and why the article of the incident itself doesn't mention the ideological motivation behind the attack?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Strasbourg_attack Reaper7 (talk) 16:07, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Reaper7 It's because user TompaDompa deleted material from the article citing "confirmation" criteria, but did not monitor the event for further development to re-add the material. Another similar example is the Utrecht shooting by another user, bottom of the talk page. TompaDompa, could you monitor the events you delete so you can re-add them? That would be much appreciated. 1Kwords (talk) 07:16, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for the next TE-SAT report from Europol. TompaDompa (talk) 08:19, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

TompaDompa why? Sources have been available for a while on this attack now. There's no guarantee that Europol will mention this attack specifically. Most attacks are only counted, not described. There's no requirement that only attacks mentioned in Europol reports can be added to this article. 1Kwords (talk) 07:44, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Because I know it's coming and will be useful to the article once it does. In general, most of the sources that are easily located do not suffice when it comes to the inclusion criteria (that the event be described as Islamic/Islamist/Jihadist terrorism by an official source), but the TE-SAT does. TompaDompa (talk) 17:20, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Great, so when will the Europol report come out, next week, next month, next year? Clearly the man pledging allegiance to ISIL is not enough, so I am afraid we will need a ETA on the Europol report TompaDumpa. Reaper7 (talk) 18:32, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, it's a yearly report that for the last four years has been released in June or July (though it has previously been released as early as April), so most likely in a few months.
I know it might seem odd that the attacker pledging allegiance to ISIL is not enough for us to classify it as Islamic terrorism, but that's how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia has a policy against WP:Original research, which includes editors drawing their own conclusions based on what is found in WP:Reliable sources. By including the attack in a list of Islamic terrorist attacks, we are in practice calling it Islamic terrorism in WP:WikiVoice. Moreover, our WP:Manual of Style is clear on this subject, per WP:LABEL (a.k.a. WP:TERRORIST): Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. We obviously can't use "editor such-and-such deemed this to be Islamic terrorism based on reasons X, Y, and Z" as our WP:INTEXT attribution. Remember, WP:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; we go by what WP:RELIABLE (and primarily WP:SECONDARY) sources say, not by our editors' judgments. TompaDompa (talk) 19:46, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Reaper7 other WP:RS sources do suffice if they refer to the official view by authorities or the motivations stated by the attacker/organization. These may be available as soon as the trial has concluded in the attacked country, or as soon as officals/authorities release public statements. Also note that security police/agencies of individual countries like MI5, DGSI or BfV may release official statements a lot quicker than Europol and these are more useful than Europol. 1Kwords (talk) 06:08, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

TompaDompa Europol reports, while reliable, are not quite so useful if they are released up to 7 months late and incomplete in their listing of attacks. 1Kwords (talk) 06:08, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, there's pretty much always going to be some kind of a delay. That's just the nature of these kinds of criminal investigations; getting it right takes time, even when it seems clear-cut from the start. We could add a note to that effect to explain why events don't show up in the list immediately after occurring. TompaDompa (talk) 23:33, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

The problem isn't that the events aren't added to the list as soon as they occur, the problem is that events aren't added to the list as soon as WP:RS are available. Instead it is suggested that we must wait for Europol when this is not at all the case. There is already a note saying the list is incomplete, that should suffice. 1Kwords (talk) 06:36, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not trying to suggest we need to wait for Europol when there are other sources available that would do the trick. I wait for Europol to save time hunting for sources. The sources that are available early on tend not to cut it, and keeping track of the specific events for months afterwards to see if adequate sources emerge would take more of my time than I feel it's worth. TompaDompa (talk) 08:30, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

AFAIK, Europol simply compiles info provided by national police - it does not do what we here would call OR. Therefore - in most instances - national police/statutary authority have already spoken about what they consider the nature/motivation of an event to be. Occasionally an event 'falls through the cracks'. Pincrete (talk) 09:45, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

TompaDompa, since that's the case, I would kindly ask you to stop telling other interested editors that we should wait for Europol, since any official police report does the trick. It would seem that neither you nor Pincrete have the time to look for sources other. I would then ask the both of you to spend less time on this talk page and redistribute that effort towards source-hunting. 1Kwords (talk) 07:33, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

2015 Kundby bomb plot in Denmark

2015 Kundby bomb plot this one is still ongoing, a first-level conviction has been secured by the prosecutors but the case is being appealed to the the next level (landsret). You're welcome. 1Kwords (talk) 21:45, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Found sources for the appeal and added the plot to the article. Good work everybody for helping out on the source search. 1Kwords (talk) 08:05, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Terrorist attack in Strasbourg

NYT (English source) Histogenea22 (talk) 14:38, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

The info was deleted by TompaDompa but let's keep it here until the trial concludes. 1Kwords (talk) 19:51, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I initially used comment markup so as to facilitate re-adding it upon further information being available, but since that didn't keep it from being re-added (twice) without adding new sources, I eventually resorted to removing it outright. TompaDompa (talk) 10:25, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, sources. What did your own search for sources turn up, I wonder? This one didn't take me long to find: Petter Nesser at the Norwegian Defence Research Establishment include the attack in Strasbourg in this article about Islamic State terrorism in Europe. 1Kwords (talk) 21:17, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

ping TompaDompa. 1Kwords (talk) 10:08, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

whereby

Hi Pincrete per your edit comment, according to its entry in Collins Dictionary the pronoun whereby is "very common". A Thousand Words (talk) 21:26, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't dispute that, but why use that (slightly 'clunky') construction when a more concise one is available? These are summaries of key info after all. Pincrete (talk) 21:37, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't insisting that whereby must be used, it was more a comment as to whether the pronoun is still i common use. A Thousand Words (talk) 21:41, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I think that it is still widely used, but in this instance a simpler construction does the job.Pincrete (talk) 07:36, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

2016 Notre Dame bombing plot

Notre Dame Cathedral bombing attempt Histogenea22 (talk) 12:36, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

It was removed in July of this year. The reason was If suspects have been arrested for the event, but not convicted of terrorist crimes, we cannot take it upon ourselves to classify the event as an Islamic terrorist plot. That is WP:OR and a WP:BLPCRIME violation. Wikipedia's editors must not do the court's job of determining whether the suspects are guilty and of what, and deciding on our own that the event was a terrorist plot would be doing precisely that. TompaDompa (talk) 13:19, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Nobody is "deciding on our own", that's a straw man. The last few discussions have been supported by sources which you dispute. How about CTC at West Point for a source? 1Kwords (talk) 17:32, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm neutral on this one, but note that the CTC source throughout refers to an 'alleged' plot. If included, so should we. Pincrete (talk) 10:13, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

If it needs an "alleged" caveat, it doesn't belong. If we include an event in a list of Islamic terrorist plots, we are the ones classifying the event as Islamic terrorism. Terrorism is a legal concept, and terrorist acts (including plots) are crimes. Per WP:BLPCRIME, A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. Just wait for the trial to conclude. TompaDompa (talk) 16:52, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

TD, these are more than mere crimes, that's why France has deployed 10 000 troops on the streets. It is not in any way a reasonable argument to say that "this is crime just like any other", that's trivialising hundreds of dead and a four-digit number of wounded. If a person is presumed innocent, it means the name is not published. It does NOT mean that we write nothing because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Who is wrongfully presumed guilty if the name is unpublished? Also, ISIS does not view this as "crime", but war. 1Kwords (talk) 18:53, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Nobody said that they are "mere" crimes or "just like any other" crime, but they are crimes. That's why perpetrators are tried and convicted in courts of law. What's important to recognise is that if a putative terrorist is convicted of murder but not of any terrorist crimes, it's libellous to refer to them as a terrorist (but not as a murderer). In the same way, we can't refer to a killing as "murder" if the perpetrator stands accused of manslaughter, because murder is a legal term. TompaDompa (talk) 19:19, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

@Histogenea22: if you wish to contribute to adding to the Plots section in this article without your contributions being immediately reverted by the patrollers of this article, I would instead suggest this: find terror plots where there have already been court convictions. If you know many languages, that is a good help. Much appreciated. 1Kwords (talk) 19:00, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I will try to follow all developing Dutch cases. Histogenea22 (talk) 19:26, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Histogenea22. Perhaps these articles will be useful as a starting point. 1Kwords (talk) 19:35, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't agree with TD about this as I don't see why an alleged plot fails BLPCRIME, any more than the linked article does. So long as section title, opening para giving our inclusion criteria and each individual entry is clear that these are allegations, I don't see a problem. A bigger problem to my mind is including original arrests of trivial incidents, but not then updating with releases/convictions - which used to be the case. Pincrete (talk) 23:53, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Ok so there's a trial underway now: https://www.france24.com/fr/20190923-paris-tentative-attentat-notre-dame-proces-femmes-jihadisme-terrorisme. Thanks for all the help with finding sources and monitoring developments. A Thousand Words (talk) 06:59, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Paris police stabbing attack

Main article: Paris police headquarters stabbing

It is debated whether the killer who stabbed four police officers in France was radicalized. Let's keep an eye on that for the article. https://www.linternaute.com/actualite/societe/2310890-attaque-a-la-prefecture-de-police-de-paris-la-piste-de-l-attentat-resurgit-michael-harpon-radicalise/ A Thousand Words (talk) 19:52, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Truck ramming in Limburg, Germany

Truck ramming in Limburg, Germany, on 7 Oct 2019. Motive was unclear at time of writing of Deutsche Welle article: https://www.dw.com/en/german-authorities-investigating-stolen-truck-ramming/a-50733828. Let's keep it here for future monitoring. A Thousand Words (talk) 06:22, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

It is unlikely that there will ever be a definite official statement on that matter. In 2018 Cologne attack the article dismisses a terror-background, although the given source for that statement [1] does only state that the attacker "most likely didnt have an islamist motive" - and that source is still the best we have as of today. I would remove the Truck-ramming in Limburg from the list until further notice. Alexpl (talk) 09:30, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

The Limburg ramming is investigated as a terrorist attack. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-49970807. The Cologne attack article could use some work though, it categorises the perpetrator as a casualty of the attack. A Thousand Words (talk) 18:59, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Alexpl for pointing out the Cologne attack article, I fixed some issues with that article even though it is kind of irrelevant to the topic of this section, the Limburg truck ramming per WP:OTHERSTUFF. A Thousand Words (talk) 06:33, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 December 2019

The 2019, London bridge stabbing needs to be created into a new chart. In 2018, the 2018 Westminster car attack needs adding. Mlutter1 (talk) 17:37, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: In the former case, we wait until we have a proper source to attribute the classification of the attack as an Islamic terrorist event to (if one does not turn up before, it is likely to be in the next Europol TE-SAT report). In the latter, the attacker was convicted of two counts of attempted murder but no terrorism offences, making it a gross WP:BLPCRIME violation (as well as potentially libellous) to refer to it as terrorism. TompaDompa (talk) 19:55, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

The archiving mechanism

Hi TompaDompa, how does the archiving work? For instance the Investigation in Rotterdam section is gone, but the trial and the discussion hasn't been concluded. The archiving mechanism, in its current form, makes it difficult to use the talk page to track events & trials. A Thousand Words (talk) 02:24, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what the question is, but I'll try to answer. The archiving works the same way it did before the page move (it was intended to work that way afterwards too, but it was broken), with automatic archiving of sections with no replies in a certain amount of time. There are several possible ways of dealing with this. One is to use {{Do not archive until}} to prevent automatic archiving. Another is to adjust the amount of time that needs to pass before sections are archived. A third is to keep track of events in the archives instead of on the talk page. TompaDompa (talk) 06:56, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

TompaDompa the questions concerns all the sections that were used to track antiterror alerts and how the archiving bot interferes with them. Also there's a question on how to resolve the situation. If you need further clarification on what the questions are, please ask again and I will explain in greater detail for you.

Having a time-based archive mechanism is not useful for antiterror trials which no one knows how long they will take to conclude. Keeping track of events in the archive defeats the purpose of tracking events which are meant to not be forgotten, because in the archive they run increased risk of being forgotten. Could you restore the lost sections and add the {{Bump}} template with 3650 days? Thanks in advance. A Thousand Words (talk) 07:22, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to unarchive inactive talk page sections in order to keep track of events when it is in principle no more difficult to keep track of those events in the archives. It would mainly add a bunch of clutter to the talk page. However, you can always do it yourself if it's important to you. TompaDompa (talk) 08:03, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Another possibility (which I have done on other articles sometimes), is to create a sandbox-y 'keeping track' page, to use as a 'public notepad', and link from here. Pincrete (talk) 08:27, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

TompaDompa, which events in the archive are you tracking? Now that you say it's easy to do, I'm interested to know so we can cooperate on those. Myself, I can easily see a reason: on the talk page, editors can help each other keep track of events which is important to the article. It is better if people can collaborate on keeping track of events, rather than hide away important events on sandbox pages or in the archives, where such collaboration is very unlikely to happen. It is unfortunate if event-tracking is derided as clutter, but perhaps it couldn't be helped. A Thousand Words (talk) 07:16, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

As long as there is no further discussion beyond the initial "this is something that might be interesting later" post, it's more of a link repository for future use than a talk page discussion. One such section doesn't constitute talk page clutter, but thirty surely does. It's trivial to unarchive sections to comment something further on them. TompaDompa (talk) 10:32, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I've been thinking to have an "Event tracking" section on the talk page where events can be tracked in subsections. A section can be moved to a top-level section when the event has been moved to the article, or found to not be I-T. How does unarchiving work? Is there a manual page for the archiving mechanism you could link? A Thousand Words (talk) 12:06, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't know if there's a better way of doing it, but when I unarchive things I just cut and paste from the archive to the active talk page. TompaDompa (talk) 12:47, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Right, my question arose from hoping that there was a more sophisticated way of doing it. A Thousand Words (talk) 19:12, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Buckingham palace attacker convicted of terror

It seems the individual who attacked police officers outside Buckingham palace with a sword in 2017 and who pleaded that he was depressed to evade a terrorist conviction was released and has been arrested and convicted. There's a standalone article: Mohiussunnath Chowdhury https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/mohiussunnath-chowdhury-terror-attack-trial-buckingham-palace-sword-prison-release-a9322346.html A Thousand Words (talk) 07:40, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Pincrete, you posted a long text about the Buckingham Palace attack and was cleared by the jury by claiming mental illness, but according to sources (BBC) Chowdhury has bragged about deliberately deceiving the jury and that the Buckingham Palace attack was really a terrorist attack. What do you think, should the Buckingham Palace attack be re-inserted to the list? TompaDompa what do you think? A Thousand Words (talk) 09:03, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any reason for deviating from normal guidelines - if police explicitly say Buck Pal was IT, so do we, otherwise not. I note that the Indy records him as 'slashing police officers' - the coverage at the time spoke of him "reaching for a sword in the passenger seat well". The guy always seems to have been more Walter Mitty than O bin L. That doesn't mean that he isn't a danger of course - nor that police could/should ignore him.Pincrete (talk) 10:08, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

This article should say that there was a conviction for terrorist offences and that the individual was cleared for the Buckingham Palace attack by deceiving the jury. You described the Buckingham Palace attack as "comic relief" in your other post which I linked. Who is Wallter Mitty? Was Walter Mitty inspired by jihadist ideology? At the time, it seems The Guardian only mentions "reaching for the sword", while Bloomberg wrote A 26-year-old man used a four-foot sword to slash London police officers near Buckingham Palace in an attack Scotland Yard said is being investigated as a terrorist act. It seems unwise to rely on The Guardian as a single source. A Thousand Words (talk) 10:41, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Why should it say that? If he boasted down the pub that he was King-Kong would we report that as fact? If the authorities say Buck Pal was Is Ter we record the fact, if they don't we don't - simple as that. People who are cleared by a jury are cleared by a jury, it isn't up to WP editors to 'know better'. Pincrete (talk) 13:51, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm with Pincrete on this one. As always, Islamic terrorism is a contentious WP:LABEL which requires WP:INTEXT attribution, and local consensus is that we only use official sources for determining whether a specific attack should be included. TompaDompa (talk) 18:10, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

TompaDompa & Pincrete, neither of you have suggested what the article should say. What do you think it should say on the conviction? A Thousand Words (talk) 18:38, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

How about A man who was previously cleared of terrorist charges relating to a 2017 sword attack outside Buckingham palace was convicted on [date] of planning terrorist attacks after his release. (with sources, naturally) plus of course an WP:INTEXT attribution that this was specifically Islamic terrorism (I note that The Independent says that he consumed both Islamist propaganda and material by right-wing extremists)? TompaDompa (talk) 19:11, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm on my way out, but ... why would we mention Buck Pal at all? What is the normal practice with a previous 'not guilty' verdict, for non-terrorist offences? How can one use 'attack' (of BuckPal incident), if a court decided there was no attack? FWIW, I always felt that the accused went to Windsor and later Buck Pal with the intention to perpetrate some kind of offence, but a mixture of ineptitude and lack of resolve turned it into a very damp fizz. There were people like that during the Irish 'troubles'.Pincrete (talk) 09:16, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Pincrete which source describes the attack as "damp fizz"? Which sources makes the connection between this attack and The Troubles? It's getting harder and harder to WP:AGF. A Thousand Words (talk) 08:42, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I presume that you are able to understand "FWIW, I always felt …"? Personal opinion is allowed on talk pages and I have never suggested inserting it into the article.

The key question in my post is: "What is the normal practice with a previous 'not guilty' verdict, for non-terrorist offences?", because the same rules should apply here. If a previously not guilty person is subsequently alleged to have boasted of having fooled the court to an undercover police source, does that negate the previous verdict? That is the implication of your post above: "This article should say that … the individual was cleared for the Buckingham Palace attack by deceiving the jury". That is the worst kind of WP:OR IMO, interpreting evidence offered in a court to reach a conclusion which neither the court nor RS came to. That he is alleged to have boasted thus is a matter of record, that he actually did so is your own opinion only.

A cab driver who drives all the way to Windsor, with satnav, and can't find Windsor Castle is pretty much the height of ineptitude - he may also of course have had malicious intent, probably did in fact IMO, but for whatever reason, a jury found him not guilty and you want to negate that. Pincrete (talk) 10:14, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Pincrete, well thanks for making your feelings known. You know very well that The Troubles fall under WP:OTHERSTUFF. If you wish to discuss the The Troubles, why not contribute to that article?A Thousand Words (talk) 11:06, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

There is no need to name me, this article is on my watchlist. The linked article, about Mohiussunnath Chowdhury is truly terrible IMO. It repeats many accusations made in court as fact in WP:VOICE. A guilty verdict means that a jury has found the case proven on the balance of the evidence it heard. It does not mean that all/any specific evidence offered in court is true - just as an innocent verdict does not mean the accused's mother, or some other witness, describing what a nice, well-behaved-boy the accused is suddenly becomes objective truth. If I were feeling more motivated iro this topic area, I would attempt clean-up, but the focus of my attention is elsewhere at present. Pincrete (talk) 12:14, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Potential terrorist attack Sweden

Swedish source Histogenea22 (talk) 13:44, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Terror plot in Copenhagen

A man from Malmö is being charged with planning a terror attack in Copenhagen. He has earlier been charged with an arson attack against a shia mosque but was acquitted. You're welcome. http://www.gp.se/nyheter/v%C3%A4rlden/man-fr%C3%A5n-malm%C3%B6-inf%C3%B6r-r%C3%A4tta-i-danskt-terrorm%C3%A5l-1.12618545 1Kwords (talk) 07:51, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Attack in Utrecht Netherlands

Yesterday three people were killed and five were wounded because of a 'shooting' in a tram in Utrecht, the Netherlands. It's higly likely that the attacker had a jihadist motive. The note he left in his getaway car stated that he had done it in the name of allah Reuters. Histogenea22 (talk) 15:50, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

2019 Utrecht shooting Histogenea22 (talk) 08:18, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

"Local chief public prosecutor Rutger Jeuken said that early indications suggested a terror attack. “The first interpretation of what happened according to witness statements and the evidence we have found suggest a terrorist motive, although we cannot rule out other motives,” he said in a press conference in the evening.

We need explicit confirmation that the incident was both terrorist and Islamist. At the moment the former is simply the main line of inquiry, the latter is speculation. That may change of course. Pincrete (talk) 10:05, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Ok Pincrete I hope you will monitor this event for future developments. Could you also go through the other incidents on the talk page that may have been updated since and add them to the article? Thanks. 1Kwords (talk) 07:07, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Pincrete hi, will you take up the task to monitor this event for further developments? You did refer to future changes in your last post. 1Kwords (talk) 06:33, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Frankly no! I don't always have the time, don't necessarily have access to apt sources and, besides, that isn't how things get done around here. Pincrete (talk) 09:50, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Pincrete It would seem that since you have a lot of time to dedicate towards this talk page, that you are in a good position to help out with this simple task. Sources are generally publicly available and you have no lesser degree of access than anyone else. Also, Wikipedia is a collaborative effort so collaboration is exactly how things do get done. 1Kwords (talk) 07:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

"A lot of time to dedicate to the talk page" = (according to my count) 10 short posts since October last year. I've given my answer and reasons. Pincrete (talk) 08:54, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Pincrete that's still more than your than your additions to the article itself. 1Kwords (talk) 06:59, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I apologise for having been more interested in articles elsewhere. I will make sure it doesn't happen again! Pincrete (talk) 09:18, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

ps, please do not 'ping' me here unless there is some urgent need. This article is on my watchlist - so I can see whether I can add anything to discussion. Pincrete (talk) 09:37, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

info was deleted by TompaDompa but let's keep it here until the trial concludes. 1Kwords (talk) 19:53, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I initially used comment markup so as to facilitate re-adding it upon further information being available, but since that didn't keep it from being re-added without adding new sources, I resorted to removing it outright. TompaDompa (talk) 10:25, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

2019 Lyon bomb attack

Posting a link to article 2019 Lyon bomb attack to track this attack - a terrorist inquiry has been opened. 1Kwords (talk) 20:05, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Milan stabbing

A man stabbed an Italian soldier in the neck and in the back with a pair of scissors. He was arrested after the stabbing, which was described as a terrorist attack linked to Islamic extremism. The soldier survived the attack.

• Another source, Deutsche Welle Police are now investigating whether Hosni, who had dual Tunisian and Italian citizenship, had links to terrorist organizations. Authorities cautioned that they were not prepared to classify the incident as terrorism, but said there were several videos devoted to "Islamic State" (IS) terrorist ideology posted to a Facebook account believed to belong to Hosni.: https://www.dw.com/en/italy-police-probe-milan-train-station-attacker-for-terrorist-links/a-38912413 A Thousand Words (talk) 16:42, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
• and a signature. A Thousand Words (talk) 16:42, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

References

London Bridge 2019

• Keeping source here until motive confirmed: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-50610215 A Thousand Words (talk) 06:22, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Europol's definition of jihadism

@Pincrete and 1Kwords: The WP:LEAD currently states Europol, which releases the annual EU Terrorism Situation and Trend report (TE-SAT), started using a narrow definition of jihadist terrorism in its 2020 report from when it defined jihadism as a violent sub-current of Salafism, which rejects democracy and elected government in favour of "a violent ideology exploiting traditional Islamic concepts". The previous definition was "religiously inpsired terrorism". I don't think this is quite accurate. What the report says about changing definition is:

In sum, the term jihadism refers to a violent ideology exploiting traditional Islamic concepts. It is preferable to the more vague term ‘religiously inspired terrorism’ used in previous editions of the TE-SAT.

The problem here is that this does not say that this refers to all previous editions of the TE-SAT, and indeed Europol has used the term "jihadist terrorism" since the 2016 report (2015 events). They haven't used the term "religiously inspired terrorism" since the 2015 report (2014 events). It's somewhat WP:OR to claim that the change in definition happened this year when the source does not explicitly say as much, and I'm also pretty sure it's inaccurate. For the record, the TE-SAT used "islamist terrorism" from the 2007 report (2006 events) to the 2011 report (2010 events), "religiously inspired terrorism" from the 2012 report (2011 events) to the 2015 report (2014 events), and has used "jihadist terrorism" since the 2016 report (2015 events). TompaDompa (talk) 09:37, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

TompaDompa, my fault, amend as you see fit. The one thing I wouldn't approve of is to remove the reference to "religiously inpsired terrorism" - only because 'narrow' has no context without knowing what a previous, broader/looser/less exact definition was. I was thinking of adding a phrase or two anyway, since they also say jihadist terrorism seeks to impose Islamic law, which it prefers to liberal western govt. It's mildly off-topic, but I don't see what this newer definition would exclude - territorial struggles (eg Palestine), would already be excluded anyway, as presumably would be acts by people who happen to be Muslim, but for whom that is not the motive. I'm not clear whether they are being 'more exclusive', or simply more exact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pincrete (talk • contribs) 10:29, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Pincrete: I gave it a shot. It could probably use a bit of copyediting, especially the explanatory footnote. TompaDompa (talk) 15:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any problems ... it's all a bit confusing them changing their terminology, but their final definition is quite clear and explicit. I MAY have made partial sense of their use of 'narrow' .... the sentence has a footnote number 22 (barely visible on my screen) , the footnote is: "Sedgwick, M., ‘Jihadism, Narrow and Wide: The Dangers of Loose Use of an Important Term’, Perspectives on Terrorism, Vol. 9, No 2, 2015, p. 34-41." So they are probably referring to a 'narrow' definition referred to in that publication. I can still only guess at what might be excluded in the narrow definition! Pincrete (talk) 16:13, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

That source can be read here at JSTOR. TompaDompa (talk) 16:17, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

And here! It explains TE-SAT's use, but probably isn't relevant to this article. Pincrete (talk) 16:20, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 July 2020

Under the Terrorist plots section, the third last item, change "31 April 2018" in the description to "30 April 2018". As the arrest happened that date, and also because 31 April is not a real date. Lochglasgowstrathyre (talk) 17:12, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Done, thanks, well spotted.Pincrete (talk) 17:28, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Terrorist trial in Copenhagen for 2019 tax office bombing

• According to this source terrorism laws are involved, but since they do not write which kind of terrorism it is fairly certain that it could be jihadism. https://www.berlingske.dk/samfund/svenskere-anklages-for-bombe-ved-skat-terrorlov-i-spil A Thousand Words (talk) 05:51, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Restructuring "Terrorist plots" section

The Terrorist plot section could be restructured, so that they are instead grouped by year. Each year would then have a "Attacks" and "Plots" subsection. A Thousand Words (talk) 06:06, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Do you mean like this:

• Attacks
  • 2018
  • 2019
• Plots
  • 2018
  • 2019

Or like this:

• 2018
  • Attacks
  • Plots
• 2019
  • Attacks
  • Plots

? TompaDompa (talk) 15:31, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Don't understand. Surely a plot is something which did not result in an attack. Is what is meant 'intended attacks'? Pincrete (talk) 15:48, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, TompaDompa has the idea. Great visualization, I'm ashamed that I didn't think of displaying it like that. A Thousand Words (talk) 16:04, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Which of those two did you have in mind? TompaDompa (talk) 17:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Scrolled a bit aggressively there, so the top option was hidden from view. I imagined the lower one. Sorry for the confusion. A Thousand Words (talk) 18:39, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't see what the benefit would be, and I think it would be better to keep it the way it currently is. TompaDompa (talk) 21:58, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

The benefit is of course that the plots are grouped by year, which they currently aren't. That's a problem in the current format. A Thousand Words (talk) 05:17, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Why is that a problem, in your opinion? TompaDompa (talk) 05:45, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

That's easy to answer: Europol reports group both attacks and plots by year. A Thousand Words (talk) 06:07, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Well of course they do, since that's an annual report. Wikipedia is not released annually, so that's no reason for us to do the same. In what way would grouping the plots by year improve the article? TompaDompa (talk) 07:28, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

It keeps information for each year in one place. For what reason do you oppose having information grouped by year? A Thousand Words (talk) 05:50, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

It's very strange that more effort is expended on this talk page than the article itself. A Thousand Words (talk) 05:51, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any advantage and see some disadvantage - real attacks have more significance than plots IMO, some of which are amateur in the extreme and many have elements which are inherently unknowable/speculative.Pincrete (talk) 06:38, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Which source says plots are amateur in nature? What is meant by "amateur"? A Thousand Words (talk) 08:50, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I thought that it was fairly self-evident that this was a personal observation, not something which I intended to insert in the article, therefore no cite was necessary. But since you ask, Exeter itself IMO was pretty amateur - no serious org puts its faith in somebody with severe learning difficulties. The Buckingham Palace incident was spectacularly amateur, the would be perpetrator got lost looking for Windsor Castle and ended up at Windsor Castle pub, despite having satnav and despite Windsor Castle being prominently signposted everywhere near Windsor, he then changed his target but failed to crash into a parked police van and was then overpowered by two unarmed police with no difficulty. Amateur planning and execution does not equate to 'harmless' of course - even Walter Mitties can do harm. Pincrete (talk) 09:33, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Personal observations and rants about Waltermitwhats are WP:IRRELEVANT per WP:NOTFORUM. A Thousand Words (talk) 09:40, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

You asked me a question - I answered it. Pincrete (talk) 09:47, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

The question asked an opinion from sources as anything else would violate WP:NOTFORUM (read this). This shouldn't have to be explained. Can we get back to the topic of this discussion now? A Thousand Words (talk) 10:04, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

If you want a source, the judge called Exeter "unsophisticated" [2]. Back on topic, I also don't see any advantage but I do see disadvantages. We have way better data on attacks than on plots. TompaDompa (talk) 12:44, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Actually all of Wikipedia wants sources rather than opinions by editors. The plots section has been strongly opposed on this talk page and now efforts to organize it are being resisted too. A Thousand Words (talk) 05:23, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

TompaDompa, which data do you have on plots? I only ask since you say one form of data is better than the other. A Thousand Words (talk) 05:28, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

No, I actually didn't say one form of data is better than the other. I said the data itself is better. I think it's self-evident that more in-depth information is available to us when it comes to the attacks than the plots. Efforts to organize the plots section aren't being resisted, other people just disagree with you about whether a specific change would be an improvement. What you're proposing would indeed remove the plots section entirely. TompaDompa (talk) 08:13, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

"The plots section has been strongly opposed on this talk page and now efforts to organize it are being resisted too." A Thousand Words. Not agreeing with you does not equate to an effort to resist anything. WP:AGF is also a policy. I won't bother to ask for diffs since we both know they don't exist. Pincrete (talk) 09:05, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Reading Terror attack

Why is the Reading terror attack not included yet for 2020? https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-53129046 CreativeFlesh93 (talk) 17:27, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

CreativeFlesh93 you won't be able to add this to the article since now even UK police authorities are afraid to use the term Islamist or Jihadist terrorism per The Times: Police may drop ‘Islamist’ term when describing terror attacks. A Thousand Words (talk) 18:22, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

By contrast the French Le Figaro writes that La terreur islamiste vient pourtant de se rappeler tragiquement au royaume (run in translator). A Thousand Words (talk) 18:22, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

So is this page dead then..? If we can't add anything new because it's offensive to use specific terminology, we can never update with any new attacks. CreativeFlesh93 (talk) 21:48, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

The notion that UK police avoid a term because it is offensive, is pure speculation on A Thousand Words's part - and is contradicted by actual police practice. What is accepted on this page is that we do not add incidents until UK police or a UK legal authority (Home secretary or similar), or similar authority says it's Islamic/Islamist/Jihadist terrorism. Historically, editor's adding events to this list on the basis of editor's own assessment or press speculation has resulted in too many additions that turned out to be false. I imagine that the motive for Reading may well ultimately turn out to be Islamist - but that is not for us to decide.Pincrete (talk) 22:17, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Must it be stated by a national legal authority (i.e. other types of wp:RS would not be acceptable)? --Local hero ^talk 03:41, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

As is shown above, even using official publications by the Dutch secret service AIVD was resisted in the discussion about the Utrecht attack. Next there will be arguments that you should wait for Europol to release a report next year. Hilariously, material about the bom bombings in France perpetrated by the Groupe Islamique Armé was deleted recently. A Thousand Words (talk) 05:43, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

No one has ever suggested that anyone wait for Europol AFAIK. Since this section is about Reading, perhaps you could let us know why you imagine Le Figaro is in a better position to assess the motives of the accused than the police who have actually been interrogating him and all his associates! Oh of course, I forgot, British police may now be afraid of offending un-named muslim police organisations - according to the headline in a Times opinion piece. My strong suspicion is that Reading will turn out to be wholly, or partly Islamist, but no one can possibly assess that without access to the accused and the evidence.Pincrete (talk) 08:08, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Local hero, the convention on this page has been that the legal authority of the relevant country should make that judgement. Occasionally there have been instances when Europol (which collates EU-wide crime info), have been the first ones to say it is Is-Ter, but usually national authorities are explicit, and have a vested interest in being explicit. I am only guessing, but the BBC report mentions mental health issues with regard to the Reading accused, so police may be delaying making this judgement until they have a more cast-iron case, or until trial. If you think about it, why should any newspaper, but especially one outside the UK, be in a better position to make a judgement about an accused's motive than the actual police interviewing him and scrutinising his computer/browsing history etc. There is in the real world, and has been in the past on this page, a tendency to assume that any violent act perpetrated by a muslim, or someone from a muslim country, was Islamic terrorism. Reading may very well turn out to be wholly or partially motivated by Islamist motives - but time - and the police/courts - will tell.Pincrete (talk) 08:08, 24 July 2020 (UTC)