Jump to content

Talk:Islamic terrorism in Europe/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12

2008 Exeter attempted bombing

Is 2008 Exeter attempted bombing an Islamist plot ... The person convicted is described as having learning difficulties, but coming under radical influences. While there was a terrorist conviction, no Islamist motive appears to have been spelt out by authorities. Pincrete (talk) 12:35, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I am unable to access one of the two sources cited because it is behind a paywall, but can we attribute the classification of Islamic terrorism to any official source? If we cannot, the entry should be removed. If we can, we should add WP:INTEXT attribution. TompaDompa (talk) 18:41, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Can we attribute the person having "learning difficulties" to any official source? Claiming someone has a mental disability can be stigmatising. A Thousand Words (talk) 05:53, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
The sources on the main 'attempt' article speak of Asperger's, personality disorder and learning difficulties, so that element isn't in much doubt - nor is there much disagreement about him being probably manipulated online. The missing element is officialdom saying A+B = C. Pincrete (talk) 06:33, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Which specific sources are you thinking of? Please provide links. A Thousand Words (talk) 08:47, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Police believe the Plymouth man, who has learning difficulties, was encouraged by extremists in Pakistan. [1] TompaDompa (talk) 12:39, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
But police aren't psychiatrists or educational experts. It also doesn't say which police, simply "police". It is not a statement by a doctor or expert in medicine. This is very strange, because if I added material to this article with a source saying "police believed this was a jihadist attack", it would be deleted since it come from a judge or a public report. A Thousand Words (talk) 05:19, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
If you read that sentence again, you'll note that it doesn't attribute that part of the claim to the police – only the part about believing he was encouraged by extremists in Pakistan. The part about learning difficulties is in the newspaper equivalent of WP:WikiVoice. This source does the same thing: Reilly - who converted to Islam between 2002 and 2003 - had learning difficulties and Asperger's syndrome. But none of this really matters because it's not something that we're adding to the article anyway. TompaDompa (talk) 08:05, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Not sure you are reading that correctly, because that would be atrocious journalism juxtaposing the journalist's opinion with police information. but "wiki voice" is not a WP:RS source anyhow. It matters because there are two standards of evidence in operation here: learning difficulties can be attributed to a newspaper journalist, but Islamic terrororism must be attributed to a judge or official police report. Everyone can see this. A Thousand Words (talk) 05:43, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
See, TompaDompa deleted information about a London terrorist plot. Would The Guardian stating Isis follower tried to create jihadist child army in east London be enough to merit inclusion in this article? The double standard says not. 05:43, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Just stop it, will you? You're either not reading properly, being willfully obtuse, or simply do not understand what sources are used for on Wikipedia. There is no double standard; we're not adding either to the article without proper sourcing. And since we're not adding it to the article, the sourcing doesn't matter. You're arguing as if you don't understand the difference between an article and a talk page. TompaDompa (talk) 06:14, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

The Guardian example clearly shows that you delete despite reliable sources. The AIVD example above concerning the Utrecht attack shows that my evaluation of the AIVD source was eventually vindicated by Europol, yet you are the one calling calling me "obtuse". A Thousand Words (talk) 18:06, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

As you well know, that source wasn't cited in the article when I removed the entry. I'm not going to go trawling through the internet to see if I can find a source that would justify inclusion when no such source has been cited; finding sources is the responsibility of the editor who adds the content. We don't add content first and then go looking for sources that verify it, that's completely backwards.
However, looking through that Guardian article you linked I don't see anything we can use for WP:INTEXT attribution to official sources for this being Islamic terrorism, which is the threshold for inclusion for this article. If you disagree with that reading of the source, you are free to re-add the entry, with WP:INTEXT attribution, yourself. As my edit summary said when I removed the entry, Do not re-add without WP:INTEXT attribution. In other words, the entry can be re-added if there is WP:INTEXT attribution, but not without it. If you find a source which you think is sufficient to include something on the page, you can simply add it yourself. There is no need to come to the talk page and ask why nobody else has added it first. TompaDompa (talk) 00:35, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Already knew that you don't search for sources, no need to write it. A Thousand Words (talk) 05:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
AIVD was an official source but you people blocked it anyway. How much better a source than a publication by a security service do you expect? What counts as an "official source" in your opinion, except Europol? A Thousand Words (talk) 15:37, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
If you re-read that section, you'll see that neither Pincrete nor I had any objections to AIVD based on the reliability/quality/"officialness" of the source. TompaDompa (talk) 16:33, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Court proceedings in Berlin

A court case is underway in Berlin. 1Kwords (talk) 21:16, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Der Mann mit radikal-islamistischer Gesinnung sei der Vorbereitung einer schweren staatsgefährdenden Gewalttat schuldig, hieß es am Freitag im Urteil per Berliner Morgenpost. Adding to article. A Thousand Words (talk) 18:13, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Just to have more fun with sources in Kanzleideutsch: Weiterhin werden der Vorlage zufolge die Strafgesetzbuch-Paragrafen 89a ("Vorbereitung einer schweren staatsgefährdenden Gewalttat"), 89b ("Aufnahme von Beziehungen zur Begehung einer schweren staatsgefährdenden Gewalttat"), 89c ("Terrorismusfinanzierung") und 91 ("Anleitung zur Begehung einer schweren staatsgefährdenden Gewalttat") dem Terrorismus zugeordnet. Every skilled editor should realise the relevance and meaning of this Bundestag publication for the topic at hand. A Thousand Words (talk) 18:34, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 June 2020


Add the Utrecht tram shooting (4 killed, 6 injured) on March 18, 2019 in which the perpetrator had an Islamist motive, along with the Lyon bomb explosion on May 24, 2019 in which 13 people were injured when an Algerian man dropped a bomb in front of the bakery and had reportedly pledged allegiance to the Islamic State. The London Bridge stabbing on November 29, 2019 (2 killed (+1), 3 injured)), Paris Police Headquarters Stabbing on October 3, 2019 (4 killed (+1), 2 injured)) in which the perpetrator converted to Salafist Islam.On February 2, 2020 there was the Streatham Stabbing (perpetrator killed, 3 injured), on April 4, 2020 during the Romans-Sur-Isere knife attack in France, a Sudanese asylum seeker killed 2 and injured 5. On April 27, 2020 in Colombes France two police officers were seriously injured when a driver rammed his vehicle into them. He did this to avenge events in Palestine and had pledged allegiance to the Islamic State.

Provide sources that any of these were described by competent authorities - police etc - as being "Islamist terrorism". Pledging allegiance, having recently converted etc would not of itself prove anything. Streatham I imagine, is still being investigated, but the BBC source does not give a motive. Pincrete (talk) 18:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Europol is expected to release the next TE-SAT soon, so we will probably be able to add the 2019 events before too long. TompaDompa (talk) 18:10, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Utrect attack classification by AIVD

TompaDompa - here's a reliable source: the Utrecht attacker has been found guilty of murder with a terrorist motive according to the New York Times. This source took about 30 seconds to find using a competent search engine. What do you think? A Thousand Words (talk) 19:00, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

As Pincrete rightly noted, we need reliable sources that this has been described by competent authorities - police etc - as being "Islamist terrorism" whereas Pledging allegiance, having recently converted etc would not of itself prove anything. That source verifies terrorism, but not specifically Islamic terrorism. TompaDompa (talk) 21:02, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Indeed BBC and the New York Times are not reporting the motive. Okay it seems that someone has to take up the task of searching for sources in Dutch. Perhaps Histogenea22 could assist us? A Thousand Words (talk) 06:08, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
The Dutch secret service AIVD doesn't seem to have a problem with categorizing this terrorist attack as jihadist. https://www.aivd.nl/onderwerpen/jaarverslagen/jaarverslag-2019/jihadistisch-terrorisme-en-radicale-islam. A Thousand Words (talk) 06:20, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
AIVD doesn't categorise Utrect as Islamic Terrorism - the fact that they speak of the Utrect incident in this context, strongly implies that they think it could be, but they don't say it is. I don't know why, but they don't.Pincrete (talk) 09:06, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Not sure Pincrete's interpretation is correct. Have you made additions to this article using Dutch sources, Pincrete? If not, I think it is time to open an RfC on this so we can get input from editors who actually read Dutch. A Thousand Words (talk) 09:45, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Please tell me where you think AIVD categorises/describes it thus? I have no problem acknowledging that they strongly imply that they think it is - simply by discussing in that context, if nothing elae, but I cannot see anywhere that they say this explicitly. I doubt that this is about a nuance of the Dutch language, but I may well have missed something in the source.Pincrete (talk) 10:17, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Note that the entire article is about jihadist or islamist terrorism per the title, which should be obvious to English-only eidtors. Since even the title (i.e. the scope) of the AIVD article is being contested by editors who do not have Dutch language skills, it is time for an RfC. Besides, one does not have to ask permission to launch an RfC. Or is a question in the Village Pump the better option? A Thousand Words (talk) 13:45, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
ie precisely as I said, the Dutch AIVD is strongly implying that the incident is Is Ter, but not stating it, why they would do that I don't know, but they do. Just about the only established 'rule' for inclusion in this list is that authority explicitly stste IsTer. Very occasionally, for one reason or another, we have had to wait until the annual European report until getting a clear ref. I do not know of a single "missed case". What you are proposing is that we revert to "what is obvious" ie personal opinion ie WP:OR. If you had seen what an absurd, and probably libelous mess this article was when "what is obvious" was the criterion for inclusion, you would probably not be proposing this. The article is meant to be a reliable, verifiable list, not a jumble of 'probable' cases, nor a 'score-card'. Pincrete (talk) 16:43, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Repeating it doesn't make your objection any less invalid. AIVD is an authority which lists the Utrecht attack among all other Islamic Terror attacks. This is precisly why third opinions are needed, which all involved editors should welcome. A Thousand Words (talk) 19:12, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

You can't supply the text where AIVD says that the Utrecht incident is Is Ter as previously asked, so can you please point to the text where AIVD says "here is a list of Islamic Terror attacks"? You can't because they simply don't. The incident may well ultimately be identified thus, at present it isn't. I can't stop you seeking third party opinion, though I don't see the necessity, simply recognising the difference between what a source actually says (at this stage), and what may well be true, but is not confirmed. We aren't prosecuting these people, simply recording accurately verifiable information. Pincrete (talk) 23:05, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
That's right, you neither can nor should stop me from seeking third opinions. It is strange that third opinions appear to be unwelcome in this discussion. A Thousand Words (talk) 06:26, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
If you want a third opinion with regards to AIVD, I agree with Pincrete. Also, don't be silly – you know full well that it's not a question of third opinions being unwelcome. I just don't see the point in starting an RfC or a village pump discussion when it's very likely that the next TE-SAT will be released before the discussion can be closed and render the whole issue moot. That doesn't seem like a good use of the community's time. TompaDompa (talk) 07:25, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Wholly agree. It is also clear that if Dutch authorities concluded this was IsTer (which is very possible), AIVD would probably not have been the only ones to have said so. Indeed civil authority is more usually the source for info about motive. So maybe someone else has said explicitly what AIVD have only implied. Pincrete (talk) 07:32, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

The new TE SAT report is already out and Utrecht is mentioned in the Jihadist section on page 35. It is clear that Pincrete's obstruction against using WP:RS AIVD source is simply wrong and that's what has wasted time for the community. As for accusations of "score board" keeping, please see WP:BATTLEGROUND. There is nothing wrong with seeking other sources than Europol TE SAT reports. On another note, no source uses the strange abbreviation Is Ter, please write "islamic terorrism", that's what sources use. Is can be confused with the Islamic State and if Ter is an abbreviation for terrorism, please provide a source for that. A Thousand Words (talk) 06:23, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

It was released yesterday, yes. And as expected, it rendered the AIVD discussion moot. The attack can now be added. I'll do that later today if nobody else does it first. TompaDompa (talk) 07:54, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
I am saddened that 1Kwords should think that waiting for a source that ACTUALLY SAYS what he wants to insert, should be considered a waste of time. Of course no source uses IsTer, however it's marginally clearer on talk than IT or any other way of abbreviating - apologies for being a lazy two-fingered typist. Pincrete (talk) 10:36, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
My God that there is even a discussion about this says a lot about the bias of Wikipedia. Of course it is islamic terrorism. AntonHogervorst (talk) 17:15, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
AntonHogervorst are you up for the task of imvproving this article? There are a few tasks that need to be done, but the article cannot currently progress in the face of current opposition. Also, be wary of editors who do not contribute sources to talk page discussions. A Thousand Words (talk) 12:21, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
A Thousand Words No not really. I could improve a lot on Wikipedia, yes I speak and write in about four languages. But I have given up on the project. This is not an encyclopedia! This is a woke social justice warrior message board. If anyone asks me I tell them not to use Wikipedia as a source of information. The article in Dutch about 'Utrecht' was first added to the list of to be deleted articles. Probably because we had an important election the very same week of the terrorist attack. Subsequently just called 'a shooting'. The downplaying of 'incidents' on the English Wikipedia is ever worse. I do not want to put hours of effort into finding sources and trying to write neutral texts, while a mob of Wiki abbreviation throwing 'old gang' moderators will cancel all my work anyway. By the way, I know after this post, I will get warnings again in my personal page. So be it, it will not change my opinion about this project. AntonHogervorst (talk) 09:46, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
AntonHogervorst I understand and can certainly relate to the parts of spending hours finding reliable sources in several languages, only to get reverted by someone who spent two seconds throwing a three-letter abbreviation at you. Too bad, this article and enWP in general really could use the help. Anyway, I am making some headway. Found some sources at the AIVD and I found that reading rather slowly I could actually understand more than half the Dutch words. it won't be long until I'll be able to do useful searching in Dutch. Doing the same thing in Italian or Spanish will be harder, but it's necessary since Europol does a half-hearted job. A Thousand Words (talk) 09:59, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
Ah yeah okay. I am also rather busy. The thing is that on the one hand I am giving up making articles more neutral. On the other hand I don't want to be 'bullied away' also. I speak Dutch, English, German and Spanish by the way. For certain lemma's I have also read stuff in French, Italian and Swedish, but I cannot write in those languages. AntonHogervorst (talk) 12:07, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
A Thousand Words, you are aware I take it that if you have any complaints about other editors there are places to air them. Also if you disagree with other editors' judgements, there are RfC's and other ways to resolve disagreement. Snide comments about imagined opposition doesn't help anyone. What in your opinion constitutes progress? To me - I do not apologise for saying this - incidents should only be listed here when the overwhelming consensus is that they were Islamic terrorism and it is possible to attribute which court/police official/justice authority has said so. Occasionally (Exeter?) there may be incidents which have compound motives, where inclusion is a matter of judgement. I was editing this article when an obscure source half-way across the globe implying motive was looked on as good enough. The article was a joke then, was probably libelous, and certainly wortless. Pincrete (talk) 16:05, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

January 2019 plot in Germany

Three people arrested according to Deutsche Welle: https://www.dw.com/en/german-police-arrest-3-iraqi-refugees-suspected-of-planning-terror-attack/a-47287328. Let's keep it to see if further sources appear. 1Kwords (talk) 21:48, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

September 2020 stabbing attack near Charlie Hebdo headquarters in Paris

Proposed "List of attacks/2013" subsection

TompaDompa, wouldn't it be a good idea to split 2013 into a subsection of its own, using the Europol information for that year? Is that okay with you or will you revert it? I've been thinking about it for a while, but it isn't worth the effort to take the time to pull out the sources and do the edits only to have the work undone. Thought I should ask first, in the spirit of collaboration. A Thousand Words (talk) 18:23, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

There is nothing in particular that is wrong or bad about your suggestion (at least not that I can think of right now), but I have made a different suggestion that is mutually exclusive to yours, see #21 July 2005 London bombings. TompaDompa (talk) 16:51, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
The suggestion has been moved to a thread of its own. A Thousand Words (talk) 06:05, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Why would a subsection be beneficial?Pincrete (talk) 12:30, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Done and wait for archiver: Paris teacher stabbed/decapitated October 2020

Murder of Samuel Paty now has a standalone article and was added to the article. Many thanks to Gianluigi02 for constructive work on the article. A Thousand Words (talk) 05:19, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Done and wait for archiver: Dresden October 2020 stabbing

  • In the beginning of October two German tourists were stabbed in Dresden by a Syrian described as Der 20-Jährige ist ein radikaler Islamist, bereits vorbestraft und nun wegen Mordes und versuchten Mordes in Untersuchungshaft.. Wonder if The Guardian or BBC has written about this? A Thousand Words (talk) 05:23, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

2020 Nice stabbing

Hello, the article clearly says it was a beheading. Could you please point out where does it say "attempted beheading"? Thank you,Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 18:42, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Georgethedragonslayer, all sources which I have seen today, say 'almost beheaded' or some such. For example Gdn "The three people who died in the attack were a 60-year-old woman who was almost decapitated", BBC "In Nice, one elderly victim was "virtually beheaded", officials said". I have seen other sources today which use similar language - AFAI can see, it was only early reports which spoke of an ACTUAL beheading. I did not want to remove the initial refs, as they may provide additional info. Pincrete (talk) 19:04, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Pincrete Very well, thank you. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 19:12, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 October 2020

I made a graph showing the Islamic Attacks in Europe through the years. I find it informative to visualise all the victims of the attacks in one graph.

Islamic Terror Attacks in Europe (number of Deaths, Injuries, Kills (Attackers) and Attacks per year).

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Islamic_Attacks_Europe.png Gebruiker-informatie (talk) 22:40, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Sourcing issues aside, a stacked bar chart is not a good way to present this information as it combines different types of figures into a single sum. It does not make comparisons between years easier, but more difficult. TompaDompa (talk) 22:56, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

No action needed, wait for archiver: Berlin vehicle rams people July 2020

Driver was an alcoholic, will remove from list. A Thousand Words (talk) 16:43, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Done and wait for archiver: Cell in Arnhem arrrested ... and found guilty

Arnhem 27 Sept 2018 - Dutch police grab seven terror suspects fas they foil major attack with suicide vests, assault rifles and car bombs. Suspects were rounded up in flash raids by heavily armed police in Arnhem and Weert following a months long investivation of their group leader was a ardent supporter of ISIS.[1][2] let's keep it here until further developments. One of the arrested had tried to join ISIL previously. 1Kwords (talk) 07:14, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm following the developments. Here is a press release from the Dutch Public Prosecution Service [2]. Histogenea22 (talk) 11:37, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
https://nltimes.nl/tags/27-september-cell NLTimes.nl has tag which can be followed. 1Kwords (talk) 21:39, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
And more than a year later, the NL Times tag delivers information on the trial but has no info that it has concluded. It is clearly a terrorist trial. Keep for further monitoring. A Thousand Words (talk) 18:09, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Telegraph UK
  2. ^ BBC

Waldkraiburg terrorist trial

Villejuif stabbing attack Jan 2020

Already done - wait for the archiver: Vienna shootings November 2020

Reading stabbing attack June 2020

A Libyan man stabbed civilians in Forbury Gardens in Reading, England in June 2020. Police are treating it as a terrorist incident. Sources:

* Standalone article: 2020 Reading stabbings A Thousand Words (talk) 17:24, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Local hero this is the place where I (but it should really be "we") monitor sources. Add them here as they are published and if any of them verify the Reading attack as Islamic terrorism. Simply updates on the case like commencing or concluding trials are helpful on this and other events in this section. A Thousand Words (talk) 08:11, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
The attacker was sentenced to life in prison (three counts of murder, three counts of attempted murder) and the judge said the murders had a terrorist connection, that the attacker "held extremist Islamic views", and "His intention, for the purpose of advancing his extremist Islamic cause, was to kill as many people as possible in as short a time as possible." See The Independent. TompaDompa (talk) 23:23, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Suspected islamist car ramming attack in Berlin aug 2020

subthread

It would be too early to say if this received WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE.VR talk 21:33, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
All Islamist terrorist attacks in Germany live up to WP:SIGCOV. A Thousand Words (talk) 05:03, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Usually, but not automatically.Pincrete (talk) 05:07, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
"automatically"? A Thousand Words (talk) 14:22, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Simply because it was an attack with Islamist dimensions, it would not automatically be notable. There have been incidents in UK, especially where no one was hurt, and mental health was as much an issue as terrorism, where coverage was minimal and very short-lived. Pincrete (talk) 17:39, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
How many Islamist dimensions were there? A Thousand Words (talk) 18:39, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
How long is a piece of string???.Pincrete (talk) 22:23, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
What were those Islamist dimensions you were talking about? A Thousand Words (talk) 05:57, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
What are you getting at? You're the one who called it a suspected Islamist attack, citing the National Post. TompaDompa (talk) 07:52, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
OneK, apologies, perhaps you are not a native speaker, I was using 'dimensions' to mean 'aspects'. Meaning 2 here, "an aspect or feature of a situation. example sentence = ‘we must focus on the cultural dimensions of the problem’. There have been instances in the UK, and I believe in France, for example, where possible radicalisation was one line of inquiry, but a history of mental illness and/or of bizarre behaviour was another.Pincrete (talk) 08:03, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Pincrete, do you have any sources connecting this attack to other attacks in France or the UK you are mentioning? A Thousand Words (talk) 06:25, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Why would I want sources when I have no intention of inserting content drawing any comparison? Our discussion is about your statement: All Islamist terrorist attacks in Germany live up to WP:SIGCOV. To which the obvious - policy based - answer is: Usually, but not automatically, - which you appeared to have difficulty in understanding, so I clarified!Pincrete (talk) 06:50, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Only you know why you are arguing against creating a standalone aricle for this attack. A Thousand Words (talk) 10:26, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
IKwords, excuse me!!! Where exactly do I argue either for or against creating such an article? Pointing out policy is not arguing for or against anything. I have no idea whether there should be such an article and have therefore voiced no opinion. Pincrete (talk) 16:05, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

TompaDompa, the National Post source says The suspected perpetrator of a series of car crashes on a Berlin motorway on Tuesday evening has cited Islamist motives but appears to have acted alone, German police and prosecutors said Wednesday. A Thousand Words (talk) 06:25, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I know. That's why I said you cited the National Post. TompaDompa (talk) 08:57, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know which source I cited. Have a nice weekend. A Thousand Words (talk) 10:26, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

21 July 2005 London bombings (and other topics)

Don't derail the discussion by bringing up the Irish Troubles or vague hypotheses theories about psychiatric illness. Support your arguments with sources. Pretty please. A Thousand Words (talk) 06:32, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Yet another brave, snide, snotty remark cluttering up the talk page - take it elsewhere please!Pincrete (talk) 12:29, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) This event is already mentioned in the entry for the 7 July 2005 London bombings, but you are of course correct that we should follow the sources, so I'll remove it. If this belongs on this article, it should probably have a separate entry rather than being mentioned as part of the description of another. I happened to notice that the subject of whether this was Islamic terrorism was brought up at Talk:21 July 2005 London bombings#"Islamic terrorism" back in May, when Kashmiri said Whoever keeps adding the words "islamic terrorism" and related templates to the article, should better find reliable sources for this. As it stands now, the perpetrators were found guilty of an "intention to murder" and not of terrorism. The article, based on sources, also makes it clear that the motive behind the attack was "revenge" and not religion (i.e., a sense of a religious obligation). TompaDompa (talk) 12:33, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Well it seems you have found a good ally in Kashmiri then, TompaDompa. Good job on the deletions, by the way. A Thousand Words (talk) 19:14, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't understand why you take such an adversarial approach to this. WP:Wikipedia is not a battleground, but a collaborative effort. We all strive to improve this article, and ideally, we should want it to meet the WP:Featured list criteria. Part of that is that the sourcing has to be beyond reproach. TompaDompa (talk) 21:59, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
My approach is to actually find sources and add material to the article, TompaDompa. I'm pretty much the only editor left who does this, whether that makes other editors adversaries depends on their approaches I guess. A Thousand Words (talk) 04:46, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Now that you urge a collaborative approach and mention that sourcing has to be beyond reproach - which sources are you thinking of using for this article, beyond Europol? A Thousand Words (talk) 05:18, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Any volunteers up for collaborating on finding sources? Don't be shy, anyone can join. A Thousand Words (talk) 16:25, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
TompaDompa would you like to collaborate on finding the "sources beyond reproach"? A Thousand Words (talk) 05:06, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
For a number of off-wiki reasons, my own commitment to WP at present is little more than 'watching' articles I have previously been involved in and sometimes tweaking grammar or phrasing as I spot things.Pincrete (talk) 07:00, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
No worries Pincrete, since you have already said no at some point in the past. A Thousand Words (talk) 15:23, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
I was referring to your conduct on this talk page (and to some extent in edit summaries, such as this one), as you well know, and you kind of proved my point.

It's great that you find sources and add material to the article (though it's not really accurate to say that you're pretty much the only editor left who does this), but the problem at hand is that a bunch of stuff has been added to the article without proper sourcing over the years. For example, we don't actually have adequate sourcing for the inclusion of the 7 July 2005 London bombings – I went looking for sources for that specific attack back in July, and found that it was surprisingly difficult to find sources that are up to our standards, so I added the best source I could find and tagged it as being insufficient. This is just one example of where the process has been backwards – when we do it properly, we don't add content first and then go looking for sources that verify it, but rather wait until we have proper sourcing before we add the content. Doing it properly is especially important on a page like this where there are often WP:BLP issues at play.

I didn't say sources, I said sourcing, and in this case that's actually an important distinction. I didn't have any particular sources in mind, but ideally we would have a wide variety of academic sources covering the same topic as this article does. And there we run into a problem, because those sources don't exist and never have. The scope of this article, i.e. the particular set of inclusion and exclusion criteria it uses, is wholly original to Wikipedia.
The conceit is that it is in some way meaningful to consider the 2004 Madrid train bombings, 7 July 2005 London bombings, 2015 Istanbul suicide bombing, November 2015 Paris attacks, Shchelkovo Highway police station attack, and 2017 Turku attack (and possibly also the 1995 France bombings, which was added recently) part of a single topic, a topic that does not also include the September 11 attacks, 2014 Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu ramming attack, 2015 Ankara bombings, or Orlando nightclub shooting. Of course, this does not even remotely match the scopes of any of the sources (I doubt there is even a single WP:RELIABLE source with a somewhat similar scope that includes East Thrace but excludes Anatolia the way this article does, for instance). Rather, this is an arbitrary collection of disparate topics which equally arbitrarily excludes things which the sources consider part of the same topic(s).
The issue is further compounded by the fact that there are four different types of content on this article: the prose (which contains, among other things, analysis of trends and patterns), the list of attacks, the list of plots, and whatever the "response" table is (really, that table is pretty much solely a navigational aid right now – if it were converted to prose it might however be able to be informative as well). The reason that that is a compounding factor is that the scopes don't match. The WP:LISTCRITERIA should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources, but they are not – the lists define the scope geographically, but the sources define the scope geopolitically. The prose takes the geopolitical approach, being based upon sources that do likewise. To solve this, we need to either match the lists to the prose or the prose to the lists.
There are ways to try to fix or at least mitigate the problems with the scope, but they all entail radically changing the way this article is constructed. We could adjust the scope geographically/geopolitically (perhaps changing it to Western Europe or "the West" in general) and/or temporally, or perhaps some other way, to better reflect the sources. Of course, we have tried to resolve the problem this way before without much success (and the successive scope changes may have even contributed to the problem). We could also remove the prose (or merge it to Islamic terrorism#Europe) and convert this to a pure list article. A problem with that is that it would turn this into a WP:REDUNDANTFORK of List of Islamist terrorist attacks and List of thwarted Islamic terrorist attacks. Conversely, we could remove the lists (any content that belongs on them also belongs on List of Islamist terrorist attacks and List of thwarted Islamic terrorist attacks, after all) and focus solely on the analysis of trends and underlying factors, but that would make it redundant in scope to Islamic terrorism#Europe instead. We could even merge the content to Islamic terrorism#Europe, List of Islamist terrorist attacks, and List of thwarted Islamic terrorist attacks (and perhaps additional others, as appropriate) and then turn this into a redirect to Islamic terrorism#Europe. That's the easiest solution and the one I would suggest. It wouldn't mean removing any content, only moving it around between different articles. This is content in search of an appropriate article (or several, rather) to be included within. The content itself is not the problem, the way it's assembled here on this article is. TompaDompa (talk) 16:44, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I am surprised to hear that you think finding sources is difficult. A Thousand Words (talk) 19:46, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
I am surprised to hear that you think that's what I was saying, but am I to take this to mean that you otherwise agree with me here? TompaDompa (talk) 21:35, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
So your approach to collaboration is to assume that other editors agree with you? A Thousand Words (talk) 00:54, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
It was a question! Pincrete (talk) 04:57, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
1Kwords, if I had assumed that you agree with me I would have had no reason to ask for clarification about whether you do. I asked because your reply didn't seem to address the majority of what I had written, and I want to know whether you agree with me. TompaDompa (talk) 23:04, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
@1Kwords and Pincrete: Thoughts on my suggestion? TompaDompa (talk) 23:41, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
TD apologies, I'm less than highly motivated at present with regard to this article and WP generally and therefore feel a bit of a fraud offering any response at all. PERSONALLY, I would favour defining the scope geo-politically, which would probably end up as Western Europe, which is almost synonymous with EU+. I can see the sense of defining the scope thus, all liberal democracies, all with similar post WWII migrant workforces/refugee populations, many with similar colonial histories and histories of involvement in middle/far east conflicts. The only thing that has made the confused/vague geographical scope tolerable to date IMO is that the number of significant incidents in Eastern Europe and European Turkey/Russia has been small.Pincrete (talk) 13:21, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

The article should remain as a WP:STANDALONE article as the subject meets WP:SIGCOV and therefore the WP:GNG. Therefore the article cannot be transformed into a mere redirect. A Thousand Words (talk) 06:06, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

The geographical scope remains unresolved however - the issue was postponed at the time that the '2014' cut off was dropped. I don't agree with TD's solution, but I wholeheartedly agree with his analysis. "In geographical Europe" is almost as random as "in countries beginning with a 'B'". Little connects European Turkey with N Europe, historically, politically or in coverage by sources. It is only the fact that terrorist events in Eastern Europe have been rare, that has not highlighted the oddity IMO. Pincrete (talk) 06:36, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
This article should remain as a WP:STANDALONE article it well sourced and clearly notable and has Significant coverage and meets WP:GNG..Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:27, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Maybe we could fix the scope by limiting it to Western Europe, but I doubt it (not least because that term would also need to be defined more precisely for the purposes of this article as there is no generally agreed-upon definition). I would perhaps be more optimistic about the prospects of managing to do this if we hadn't already tried—and failed—to fix the scope several times before. This suggestion would still result in treating attacks by GIA in the 1990s (e.g. the 1995 France bombings), al-Qaeda in the 2000s (2004 Madrid train bombings), ISIL in the 2010s (2016 Berlin truck attack), and lone wolves (2011 Frankfurt Airport shooting) as part of a single topic (it would also mean treating attacks targeting a single specific person such as the Murder of Theo van Gogh, coordinated attacks such as the 7 July 2005 London bombings, and indiscriminate spree killings such as the 2018 Strasbourg attack as part of the same topic based solely on an Islamist motive, which may or may not be justified). All of that is while excluding attacks such as the September 11 attacks, 2014 Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu ramming attack, and Orlando nightclub shooting, mind you. I don't think this can be justified based on the sources available to us.

Here we have two editors asserting that there should be a WP:STANDALONE article because there is WP:Significant coverage which meets WP:GNG, and I'm sure they genuinely believe that to be the case, but the fact of the matter is that they are mistaken; while the topic of Islamic terrorism as a whole absolutely fits that description, the topic of this article—Islamic terrorism in geographical Europe since at least the 1990s—doesn't. Don't get me wrong, there are several somewhat similar scopes (or related topics) that are covered by sources: often the geographical scope is smaller—e.g. the EU, Western Europe, or individual countries (sometimes two or three)—and sometimes it intersects ("the West"). Some sources even say "Europe" in the title and then clarify in the text that they are not referring to all of it. It is not uncommon for the sources to only consider a limited timeframe or to focus solely on certain actors such as ISIL. But those are merely similar scopes and related topics. The actual scope of this article is a WP:SYNTH nightmare—as I said above, this is an arbitrary collection of disparate topics which equally arbitrarily excludes things which the sources consider part of the same topic(s), and the particular set of inclusion and exclusion criteria this article uses is wholly original to Wikipedia. I would be delighted to be proven wrong about this, by the way, so please present sources that demonstrate that this particular scope is covered by WP:RS if there are any I have missed—it would make it possible for us to rewrite the prose such that it actually describes the topic of the article and not a bunch of related/similar topics as is currently the case.

This article was created back in 2016 as Wave of Terror in Europe and we have been stuck trying to retroactively justify its existence ever since with successive title changes and scope modifications. I think it's time we acknowledged that this article should never have been created in the first place (rather, Islamic terrorism#Europe should have been expanded upon) and correct that error. Perhaps in a few years academia will catch up and there will be academic consensus about how to divide the topic of Islamic terrorism geographically, temporally, and perhaps by other parameters (ISIL vs. al-Qaeda vs. lone wolves, indiscriminate vs. targeted attacks, and so on) into parts that can be analysed separately, but we're not there yet. If and when that happens, we can of course create the sub-articles with the scopes academia has determined to be the relevant ones. TompaDompa (talk) 23:34, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@1Kwords and Pharaoh of the Wizards: Do either of you have a counter-suggestion about what to do about the scope? Or any sources to back up your assertion that this subject (i.e. Islamic terrorism in geographical Europe since at least the 1990s) meets WP:SIGCOV? TompaDompa (talk) 00:36, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Some sources even say "Europe" in the title and then clarify in the text that they are not referring to all of it. Which sources would those be, TompaDompa? A Thousand Words (talk) 05:06, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

That would for instance be the book Islamist Terrorism in Europe by Petter Nesser, which says ""Europe" refers to Western Europe, and excludes Russia and the former Eastern Bloc countries." on page 7. TompaDompa (talk) 09:02, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
@Manasbose: I'll ask you the same question I asked the other editors above: do you have a counter-suggestion about what to do about the scope? TompaDompa (talk) 16:02, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

useful sources to find events & articles

See these links:

  • French news:

Nore will be added as they are found. More links with press releases from security police in Germany, France, Spain, Belgium etc would be good. A Thousand Words (talk) 15:26, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Islamic terrorism in Russia

Is Russia not in Europe? In this article about Islamic terrorism in europe almost nothing about Russia. Just look at other articles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_Russia#Contemporary_Russia and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Islamic_terrorism_in_Russia And also in this Islamic terrorism in Europe article aren't mentioned some other terrorists attacks in Europe, not only in Russia. Almost all islamic terror attacks were made in the European side of Russia, not the Asian side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.116.40.193 (talk) 19:29, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Those events appear to be separatist attacks, performed by Muslims, rather than Islamist in character. Pincrete (talk) 06:49, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Islamic_terrorism_in_Europe/Archive_11&oldid=1171976814"