Talk:Islamic terrorism in Europe/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

One sentence at a time

The first sentence, which has been in place almost since the article was created, has never been properly sourced. It says/has said: Europe has seen increased Islamic terrorist activity since 2014. The source employed now, dated March 2016 says "Tuesday’s bombings in Brussels mark the third large-scale terrorist attack in Europe in the past 15 months." Note that there is no mention in the source of any increase and the period they are referring to is from 2015. Also our text does not say an increase from when (the early 2000s saw the Madrid Train and London Tube bombings, where the dead were in the 100s, whereas in 2014 only 4 people were killed by Islamist terrorism in the whole of Europol area). The very large increase was in 2015 and 2016 and was almost entirely in France, not Europe generally.

This opening sentence is meant to define the article, at present even that is both synth and not sourced, it isn't sourced because no sources exist, there is nothing significant about 2014. Unless the terms of reference of the article are defined, this exercise is futile. Pincrete (talk) 19:17, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment I never understood this: why (2014-present)? There are no sources that definitively point to 2014 as the beginning of an increase of Islamist terrorism in Europe. Would the article serve its readers better if we dropped "(2014-present)" and -- I don't know -- go by what sources say and clean-up the WP:SYNTH and WP:OR plaguing this subject?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:21, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Good points. Indeed, the background section then immediately starts talking about older attacks, in 2004 and 2005, then says the recent spate of attacks started in 2012... and the reality, of course, is that the number of attacks in the 2010s is still a fraction of the number of attacks in the 70s, 80s and 90s. That fact had been included at one point, I believe, but has now disappeared. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:27, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I'll direct your attention to my comments on the subject in the RfC. In summary, the sources I examined did not agree with each other as to the start date, and none of them suggested 2014.
I have also made a table based on Europol's yearly terrorism reports. TompaDompa (talk) 21:58, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Terrorism events and deaths in the EU

Year	Total events	Islamist events	Total deaths	Islamist deaths
2006	498	1
2007	583	4
2008	515	0
2009	294	1
2010	249	3
2011	174	0
2012	219	6	17	8
2013	152	0	7	1
2014	199	2	4	4
2015	211	17	151	150
2016	142	13	142	135

• I think this issue is partially rooted in WP:NOTNEWS not being enforced for this subject. The historical context an encyclopedic article requires is forced to take backseat to a group of editors' agenda on terror. From the comments I have read here and at other discussions, you all seem well-informed on WP:NOTNEWS, WP:EVENTCRIT, and how to identify reliable sources. I encourage you all to watchlist this page and engaged in discussions as often as possible. The only way these policies will be enforced is if we do the enforcing. I guarantee more and more individual pages will be nominated as we revisit them for historical significance.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:37, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

The earliest version, 'embeds' the element of synth that a 'wave of terror/second intafada' is underway in Europe. The (2014–present) arose out of an RfC last December trying to find a less 'tabloid-y' title, and its only real logic is that the list already contained events from that date. If we drop the year, we necessarily include 'Madrid train' 'London tube' etc etc and we may be forking existing articles. If we renamed to decade, but make it clear that there is nothing 'magic' about the start date and that some trends precede 2010, whilst others are later, would that work?

Regardless, the tail is pulling the dog here at present, a mass of pre-existing info is looking for a logic for its existence. Whatever we decide, I think that it would be good to include a clear 'what is included here' in the intro eg "This is a list of events since XXXX which meet these criteria, these criteria and these criteria". Then an overview that expounds on the trends/problems/limits etc, (and includes a brief comparison with other decades) for which much better sources exist than the 'news' ones which we mainly rely on now. Pincrete (talk) 06:31, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

2014

There is nothing in this article that argues with clarity why 2014 should be seen as the year at which we begin accounting for Islamic terrorist attacks in Europe. It seems arbitary and odd. The 1985 El Descanso bombing killed 18 people in Madrid. Take out the dates.Contaldo80 (talk) 08:54, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

There is a clear divide between earlier waves of Islamic Terror - which were AQ / Global Jihad / etc - and this current one. 2014 is somewhat arbitrary as opposed to 2010-2015, but the gap from previous events is clearly visible in any chart of deaths per year - e.g. [1]. Following the 7 July 2005 London bombings - Islamic terror failed to exact significant casulties for many years and deadly incidents were few and far between. In 2011 we have Brekvik (not an Islamist), and then in 2014 we have legislation in France regarding returning Jihadists - [2] and some small incidents - and then large incidents in 2015 onward (particularly January 2015 Île-de-France attacks). However before the Jan 2015 attack we also have some late 2014 incidents, as you might see here - [3]. Now, while France might have been the initial focus, these Jihadist attacks have spread out to other countries - definitely if look 2016 onwards in terms of "big" incidents - 2016 Brussels bombings, 2016 Berlin attack, 2017 Manchester Arena bombing, June 2017 London Bridge attack, 2017 Catalonia attacks - and of course many smaller incidents (single attacker who did not manage to inflict many casualties). In terms of organization - Islamic terror up to 2005 was typically organized - often with "masterminds" and "leaders", organized cells, etc. The current wave is almost all "inspired" individuals, some very locally organized "inspired" friends, with the attacks following a clear organizational terror network (Bataclan and possibly Manchester) occurring much less often. ISIS itself has been "out there" calling for these "lone wolves" to strike - providing inspiration and plans - but not organizational direction.Icewhiz (talk) 09:41, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Icewhiz, what you are seeking to do IMO, is turn a rag-bag of trends, all of which are seperately true (a small amount of 'official' ISIS involvement, which resulted in a very small (6?) number of the most deadly events/ some Syria effect/ a larger number of lone wolves/a larger number of low-tech, often self radicalised attacks) and turn this into a 'phase'. Some sources support the existence of a distinct phase, but many of the best don't and nobody has a name for the phase, nor a clear start date. The requirements of a list article are not met since criteria remain subjective. I don't object to recording those trends (+ any more that occur in 2017), I object to forcing these trends into a particular date (not supported). The date is pretty arbitary but is pretending to be otherwise, it is also built on a muddle of WP:OR and Synth which we are still living with. Pincrete (talk) 10:15, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

2014 is used by others as well. However we could just lump in all Islamic terror from the 2010 decade here (which will mostly be 2014 and onward). That this phase is distinct from prior phases (up until 2005 or so) - is quite clear at least per my navigation of the sources. Naming - beyond Islamic/Islamist/Jihadist/ISIS/whatever Terrorism (and possible date bracket) - is indeed quite variable.Icewhiz (talk) 11:13, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm essentially concerned that this article is strongly based on synthesis. I'm not convinced that 2014 does mark some clear watershed - there were Islamist-inspired attacks before and significant casualties in the years preceeding. The article also presupposes that only attacks were people die warrant inclusion - why not include attacks that failed to kill anyone? Or that failed or were foiled? Is suspect terrorist attacks were planned in many of the years before 2014 and most intercepted. This article is way too "newsy", bordering on the hysterical.Contaldo80 (talk) 08:22, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Just my two bits of thought: Isn't the de facto focus of this article and the start year 2014 connected to ISIS and ISIS-inspired attacks increasing after 2014? And thus, the article name and scope should be ISIS-inspired terrorism in Europe if we want to stay factually correct? Islamic terrorism is clearly wrong and Islamist terrorism also sounds way too broad? Shadowdasher (talk) 11:21, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

That's a good suggestion; I think pretty much all of the attacks listed here are ISIS, "ISIS-inspired" and/or "'claimed' by ISIS". Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:00, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

What are you going to do about those that aren't, or in which the ISIS 'linkage' is extremely tenuous? How do we define 'inspired', since there are already editors claiming that any post-2014 incident is inherently ISIS-related. I don't object to any coherent verifiable inclusion rationale, but I know that it is hard to keep out synth already. I can see some coherence to 'ISIS' claimed, but there is also the danger there of treating ISIS (Amaq technically), as a WP:RS. Pincrete (talk) 13:41, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Very true. Nevertheless I do agree this article has way too many problems at the moment to justify its existence. But I did a little search and there are already articles and lists on ISIS-linked terrorism (e.g. List of terrorist incidents linked to ISIL which has a much better inclusion rationale by itself "The following is a list of terrorist incidents and arrests that have been connected to or have been said by reliable sources to be inspired by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), also known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) or Daesh."). I also feel that this so called "ISIS-inspired wave of terrorism" is notable enough to warrant a stand-alone article and connecting the rationale more to ISIS might be the solution (e.g. possible merger)? Shadowdasher (talk) 20:45, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

The great majority of events have no verifiable link to ISIS, some of those are claimed by ISIS, but the extent to which that is credible or supported varies. Some are supposedly inspired by iSIS, but often according to a minority of unofficial sources or circumstantial indicators, some there is simply no link to anyone. People are almost always keen to include here, based on the scantest of evidence and often with maybe's expressed as fact. There is no 'wave of terror' with any consistent meaning, its almost always rhetorical and never defined, if a French source uses it in 2016, it refers to events in 2015-16, if UK it will probably refer to 2017. There would be no way of knowing when this 'wave' started or finished, so using it as part of a definition or title would be like having an article called Recent weather. There are possible mergers, but previous attempts to merge have gained little support.

IMO the answer is simply to abandon any pretence that 2014 is special, it isn't, it is not the start of anything and should possibly be changed to the clearly arbitary 2010. Certain trends have occurred in recent years inc some ISIS effect, some lone-wolfing, some low-tech attacks, some 'bursts of activity' such as in France for approx. 15 months, but the idea that there is a simple phenomenon, or that that phenomenon is coherently referred to as a 'wave', or has any commonname, is simply not borne out by the best sources. I'm not of course claiming that attacks have not happened, some very deadly and some astonishingly bungled and some simply baffling. To analogise, shootings have occurred in the USA, if we had a list of them, would we feel any need to 'tie them together' with any single logic and would we feel the need to invent a 'catchy title' for them which did not previously exist? Pincrete (talk) 00:33, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Agree. There's too much synthesis here. We are in danger of being the ones to create the story rather than report it. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:52, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Ditto. I quickly checked Europol's (whom I think we can agree is one of the most legitimate sources on the matter) terrorism reports and 2014 is considered in no way different from previous years. 2015 gets a bit more focus because of the large number of deaths by terrorism. And interestingly, Europol uses jihadist to describe the de facto form/style/motivation of the attacks discussed in this article/list. Would using Europol as the "framework" or "backbone" source for the article be a constructive way of going forward? (https://www.europol.europa.eu/activities-services/main-reports/eu-terrorism-situation-and-trend-report#fndtn-tabs-0-bottom-2) Shadowdasher (talk) 09:29, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I would support such a move, but Europol is of course EU only, but even a greater reliance on Europol and less on news would be a big improvement. I THINK it is Europol who date the key year for 'ISIS' inspiration to be 2016, they take the attitude that ISIS wasn't interested in 'home grown' till then if I remember correctly. The only reason I raise this is because if one looks at the better sources, there are subtle but significant differences of interpretation which go beyond 'headline-ese'. Pincrete (talk) 12:53, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks - helpful. As my point above I think we need to keep our eyes open with the editing of this article. I think there is a political push by some editors to give an urgent sense that "christian europe" is now under attack from muslims. It's not our role to get drawn into that so important to look at the bigger picture. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:12, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Year by year sections

I've split the 'list of attacks' into year sections. I've done this for two reasons, firstly so it looks clearer, secondly in order to include brief 'stats'/summaries for each year. Pincrete (talk) 09:28, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Good approach. I'd be minded to add an additional section listing events before 2014 as well - I think we can go back to the El Descanso bombing in 1985 conducted by Islamic Jihad. The next step would then be to drop the 2014 from the title and just call it "Islamic (inspired?) terrorism in Europe". Contaldo80 (talk) 09:54, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

That would add an awful lot of incidents, especially if we continue to include Russia/European Turkey. Pincrete (talk) 10:11, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

It would just add in four I think - assuming we use just the EU (as currently done for the others post 2014). See what you think.Contaldo80 (talk) 10:18, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good idea (better as 'background' in text), but let's see what others think. Pincrete (talk) 10:26, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

The article's scope is fuzzy as it is. I'm not sure if this is a step in the right direction. If the pre-2014 entries are going to remain, we'll need to summarize them in prose as is done with all the others (in the "Details" column). TompaDompa (talk) 12:13, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with 'Tompa' here, whereas rendering 'samples' in text might help provide background, (each sample serving some illustrative purpose), putting them in a table is simply inviting inclusion of every incident (inc unfulfilled plots) since the year dot IMO. Pincrete (talk) 12:58, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

But if you're going to do that then you have to argue convincingly why 2014 is a seminal moment, and that only events after that date have significance. I have no objection to people doing that but without it then the article is original research.Contaldo80 (talk) 13:09, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

2014 does not have any singular defining characteristic and is largely arbitrary, however 'opening the floodgates' on a previous 30 years is not the answer IMO. Already one sees that 1985 El Descanso bombing and Pan Am Flight 103 bombing are not 'Islamist'. Terrorist acts performed by Muslims (inc Palestinians etc) are not necessarily 'Islamist'. Pincrete (talk) 13:22, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Agree Pam Am Flight is questionable but El Descanso was Islamic Jihad. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:46, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

If you follow the sources on the 'Islamic Jihad' page, you'll see that the name is used both as a 'generic' term for Islamists and is also (as Islamic Jihad Organisation) the name of a specific group, whose objectives were 'local' in the Lebanon. It was the org. that were accused of El Descanso. This is the kind of problem I foresee if we go back to times when terms like 'Islamist', weren't widely used. Pincrete (talk) 14:01, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Sure but it's a weakness of the whole article. The fact is there is very little coherance between all these incidents. They aren't directed by one organisation or body. Contaldo80 (talk) 16:35, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Title/pre-2014 incidents

With the inclusion of pre-2014 incidents, confining this to being called to 2014-present is now a nonsense. Either only 2014 and beyond is in the article, or the title needs changing to reflect the removal of the arbitrary 2014. Sport and politics (talk) 13:00, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

For the time being, I would oppose removing the time-point, though text should not disproportionately suggest 'significance' to the date. Pincrete (talk) 13:25, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

But by having the time-point we're automatically giving it significance aren't we? Contaldo80 (talk) 13:45, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

One of my earlier suggestions was date to 2010, which is clearly arbitary and allows various trends post-then to be explored in text, rather than making 2014 a 'magic number'.

I don't know if you read this from above: "The earliest version, 'embeds' the element of synth that a 'wave of terror/second intafada' is underway in Europe. The (2014–present) arose out of an RfC last December trying to find a less 'tabloid-y' title, and its only real logic is that the list already contained events from that date".

I've been 'watching' this article on and off for nearly a year ... that may mean I understand the problems, or simply that I've been beaten into submission and should be ignored! Pincrete (talk) 13:54, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not so sure "Islamic terrorism in Europe (2010–present)" would come across as an obviously arbitrary timeframe. I think "Islamic terrorism in Europe in the 2010s" would, but that might be a bit too WP:CRYSTAL-y. TompaDompa (talk) 14:19, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

But I don't get why we need a date in the title at all. Sure break the article into sections to show a marked increase after 2014 but why not just keep it open? Contaldo80 (talk) 16:27, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

We need SOME definition and at the moment we are inviting everything from Palestinians in 1970s and before and certainly incidents before the term 'Islamist' was used. We'll then be falling back on OR and synth to decide which historical events were 'islamist' as opposed to being simply done by Muslims. The fundamental problem of the article is an excess of OR, having NO cut-off date amplifies the likelihood of it. Pincrete (talk) 16:58, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I've removed, UNTIL we have some agreement on the scope of the article. Pincrete (talk) 17:15, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I fear you're tying yourselves in knots here. The article is refers to "islamic" terrorism and not "islamist". You're arguing that it's easy to determine islamist or islamic events after 2014 but not before. This is veering towards original research.The 2014 in the title really needs to go as this is simply original research and synthesis. No-one has yet justified why it should be a date of significance. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I am most certainly NOT saying that it is possible for us to distinguish 'Islamic/ist terrorism' for ourselves, we require that competent (police or legal or similar) authority use both keywords or a close synonym (eg jihadist terrorism, which is preferred by some sources). Islamist terrorism is a more precise term, the danger with 'Islamic' or of going pre-2000-ish, is that the terms were not widely used and therefore asking which acts were 'Islamist/ic terrorism' and which were simply 'done by Muslims' would inevitably lead to WP:OR. It would be like asking which 19th Cent acts were 'fascist'. Many of the insertions being made pre-2014 (beside yours), had no reference to "Islamic terrorism" anywhere, they were simply terrorist acts perpetrated by Muslims (for what ever local reason). The article is poorly defined at present, but loosening definition further is not the answer IMO. Pincrete (talk) 12:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

A possible second RfC on scope

Since the previous RfC failed to clarify the scope, and we don't seem to be reaching WP:CONSENSUS through the discussion on this page otherwise, it'll probably be necessary to have a second RfC. The last one was very open-ended, so I think it might be worth a shot to have one with more predetermined options. Maybe that will increase the likelihood of the next one being successful (i.e. reaching consensus and clarifying the scope).

I've seen various opinions on what the scope should be, both on this talk page and elsewhere. I thought it would be a good idea to collect the suggestions in one place before the next RfC is started. So without further ado, please post your suggestions and opinions below. TompaDompa (talk) 07:06, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Simply make the article about islamic terrosim in Europe with no cut-off dates. 2014 is arbitary and can't really be justified. Certainly the attacks after 2014 aren't committed by one specific organisation. They are "inspired by" but not directed. Contaldo80 (talk) 07:30, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Contaldo80, you need to supply some definition of 'islamic terrorism'. One of the few agreements on the previous RfC, was that 'official sources' should endorse both terms (ie editors should NOT be assessing, he had a black flag, ahouted a slogan, had radical views etc.) a proposal from others is that we could include here where known organisation (IS or AQ) has claimed responsibility. Should Europe include Russia and European Turkey?Pincrete (talk) 08:05, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Why do I need to supply a definition of 'islamic terrorism'? What one are you currently working with to justify inclusion of post 2014 attacks? Europe probably shouldn't include turkey or russia as borders fall partly outside. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:43, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Scope should be any terrorist attack by a Muslim (ergo - Islamic terrorism), whose motive wasn't explicitly stated as non-Islamic (this criteria allows us to include attacks defined by authorities as extremism or terrorism but who do not, per political correctness, state the Islamic angle explicitly - at least initially), from 2010 to 2019. Possibly adjusting date brackets should they evolve in WP:RS to some consensus. Europe should not include Turkey, nor should it include Russia, both of whom are partially in Europe and face an assortment of terror/conflicts that are quite separate from the inner-European wave. I would define Europe as roughly the Schengen Area.Icewhiz (talk) 13:49, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Calling everything that a Muslim does that is not explicitly called not-Islamic by sources is original research and we can't have it. You cannot infer any conclusions from silence on part of the sources. Attributing such silence to "political correctness" is completely besides the point. We summarize what reliable sources say, and it inevitably leads to us replicating the systemic biases of the available sources. This is what Wikipedia does, because it's a summary of information that has already been published in reliable sources. If original research is needed to right great wrongs in today's journalism and academia, Wikipedia is patently the wrong venue to do this.

The scope of the article should be Islamic terrorism, as defined by reliable sources calling each entry Islamic terrorism. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:04, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

To clarify - if a RS states it is probable Islamic terrorism, we shouldn't wait for "official" confirmation. Obviously, sourcing is required.Icewhiz (talk) 14:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

In principle, I agree. Our verifaibiilty policy depends on the source being reliable, not necessarily official. But my hunch is that you are hard-pressed to find journalists of good standing calling something "probable" Islamic terrorism before any sort of official confirmation. Observance of journalistic ethics is a defining feature of reliable sources. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:12, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

In fact RS frquently use 'terror attack' in the first few days, when it isn't clear what the event is, and 'terror' is not 'terrorist/m'. The problem with "Islamic" is individual editors interpreting circumstantial (and frequently 'unconfirmed') 'evidence', (there are unnamed/unconfirmed sources claiming to have heard an Islamic slogan, an unnamed official claims that the accused's internet history implies XYZ). I can point to some breathtaking examples of WP editors misinterpreting available evidence and it staying in this article for months. No RS will ever say that it is "probable Islamic terrorism", they will sometimes do their best to imply it could well be when they don't yet know,(called synth here) or will make the claim specific if they really know anything (eg police say they are investigating the incident as ...). I don't object to those being the inclusion criteria so long as they are clear and explicit. Police say it may be ABC, does not mean it is ABC, that's why they use the word 'may'.

BTW not every terrorist crime done by someone from a Muslim background is Islamic/ist terrorism. The idea is absurd, no RS or news source of worth would use that definition, acts committed by Palestinians (for eg) for 'local' reasons would not be defined as 'Islamic terrorism' by any RS. This is a big part of the problem with this article. I agree with Finnusertop, very few RS will say that something is Islamic terrorism unless they have official confirmation, but many less RS are happy to imply they know before such confirmation exists. If good RS can wait, so can we. How on earth is a news outlet half way round the globe in a position to know better that local investigators? It defies common sense apart from WP policy. Pincrete (talk) 14:53, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

FWIW - Hamas or Islamic Jihad Movement in Palestine did carry out Islamic terror attacks (particularly when they operated in an organized manner (e.g. suicide bombers, back in the day, were offered religious salvation in heaven) - the current "lone wolf" attribution after the fact is somewhat different) - and we're labelled as such by RS. Other Palestinian terrorists - e.g. Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine or Fatah have a decidedly un-Islamic point of reference (Marxist or Nationalist) - some are actually quite opposed to political Islam and are deeply secular.Icewhiz (talk) 14:57, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I did say done "for local reasons", quite clearly any nationality CAN BE islamist. This is another reason why we should used some established reliable criteria IMO so editors are not trying to work out WHO a perp is aligned to - if anyone - and whether that group is "Islamist" or simply from a Muslim country. Pincrete (talk) 15:04, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

With the exception of Kosovo/Serbia and incidents in the far past (e.g. Algeria) of spillovers from other regions (e.g. Attacks on Israelis/Jews by Arabs, PKK/Turkey spillovers, Iranian related, etc. - all of which are not directed at "random" civilians, but are typically more focused) - the rationale for all the rest seems Islamic - I for one haven't seen a different rationale advanced - as I see it - you have a large bunch of attacks clearly labelled as Islamic, and an additional bunch of attacks (typically the less notable ones) which are alluded to be Islamic - but you don't have some official coming out and stating it clearly.Icewhiz (talk) 15:21, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

If you "don't have some official coming out and stating it clearly", you don't have a source, you have Icewhiz thinks and one journo appears to agree but Pincrete and other journos don't. By 'some official' I include recognised professional experts (such as Europol). Why/how would some obscure news source 12,000 miles away know more than those actually investigating an event? Pincrete (talk) 15:39, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

It is actually hard to be more than 12,000 miles away (And impossible to be more than 12,450). If we have a reliable source judging a book by its cover, we should accept such judgement.Icewhiz (talk) 15:44, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Prima facie, yes. But if only one reliable source out of thousands claim such a thing, then it would be WP:UNDUE weight to include it. Verifiable? Yes. NPOV? No. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:49, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

RFC: UAE minister of tolerance Nahyan bin Mubarak Al Nahyan statement

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

---

Should the following be in the article: According to United Arab Emirates minister of tolerance Nahyan bin Mubarak Al Nahyan, inadequate control of mosques has led to Islamist terrorism in Europe, saying "One cannot simply open a mosque and invite everyone to attend and to preach". Mosques inside the UAE are under strict government control. However the Arab Organisation for Human Rights in the UK said Al-Nahyan's remarks were incitement and that mosques in Europe are already subject to strict regulation while their officers "perform their mission in accordance with the moderate teachings of Islam".Icewhiz (talk) 22:37, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

References

See discussion in talk section above: Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present)#UAE minister position.Icewhiz (talk) 22:38, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• Oppose inclusion Briefly I think this is undue weight (and definitely SYNTH to include this as a 'cause'), I've given fuller reasons in the linked discussion above. I also think that it is very problematic on principle to attempt to cover causes/motivations in what is essentially a list article which should stick to summarising events and briefly summarising statistics. A long term problem with this article, is difficulty in establishing WHAT it's remit is, but expanding that remit is not the way to go IMO. Pincrete (talk) 19:24, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per Pincrete and discussion. Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:36, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose, at least as a "cause". If the minister's statement was itself controversial (which seems likely), it could be included in a section on controversies, or perhaps just chronologically somewhere. But it is not encyclopedically credible that lack of governmental rigidity about mosques mirroring that in the UAE is a proximal cause of Islamist/ic terrorism in Europe (at most, it's a partially enabling correlation, and imposition of restrictions would cause at least as many problems as it would address, starting with human rights and religious oppression outcry). We can't suggest this as a "cause" in WP's own voice, even by quoting someone else in a section on causes.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  20:16, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

NB To be fair to the editor who wishes to include this text, s/he is not adamant that it should be described as 'a cause'. Pincrete (talk) 20:22, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose, seems WP:UNDUE absent evidence of broader coverage of their remarks. Even if it is included, it'd have to just be as his opinion rather than stated as a fact. --Aquillion (talk) 16:15, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
• Suggest not including (invited by the bot) To start with, being mostly a list article, the wp:undue bar for for the little text tha5t there is is set a little higher. Either way, I think it gives too much weight to one theory espoused by one person. North8000 (talk) 18:20, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose as-is, because it is presented as a statement of fact/conclusion, and in what context is it to be presented? If it is but one statement amongst many about 'contributing factors', this might be acceptable (but worded clearly as a citation from a given person, and not a 'whole scenario' in itself), but presented alone, or with few other 'arguments', this would have undue weight (thus seem a statement of fact and a SYNTH-contributor). TP ✎ ✓ 10:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
• Please close per WP:SNOW - I am involved, but it would seem there is overwhelming opposition to inclusion at this time - I suggest the next un-involved editor that comes along here - closes.Icewhiz (talk) 12:08, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

Supplementary question: The disputed text was introduced here, and put under the section heading "Possible causes" (of Islamic Terrorism in Europe). If the text is endorsed, what is a suitable heading? Pincrete (talk) 23:15, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I propose we leave out the section heading from the RFC - I'm not insisting on any particular heading (and if there were one in the article (sorely lacking a causes / motivation section) - I would've added this particular one to there).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Icewhiz (talk • contribs) 23:21, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I still think the heading question is sufficiently important to be asked. I would oppose anything stronger than "UAE comments", or similar. I don't think that WP:Voice should be used to characterise his views. As it is your RfC, I'll leave the secondary question down here though. Pincrete (talk) 23:47, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

• Why is this relevant to the article? It seems like WP:UNDUE. Refer to above discussion about Israel and this article not really covering "deeper" causes. There is currently no content in the article about these causes, which would have to include considerably more then one quote from the "minister of tolerance" - on the whole I am leaning toward not due for inclusion. Seraphim System ^(talk) 04:29, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

  Surely other notable opinions should be included. Their current omission is not a reason to omit other missing opinions (Wikipedia as a work in progress would never get done if we edited this way). The position itself is from a highly notable government official, representing the government, who in charge of controlling mosques.Icewhiz (talk) 08:22, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Notability of the official is not an actual standard for inclusion, though it is often given as one. Even the implication that the UK should take advice on its principles of religious freedom from the UAE minister of tolerance is not a serious one, and we should avoid legitimizing it by discussing it as though it is a cause of terrorism. I have yet to see additional sources that support the idea that religious freedom is a cause of terrorism, and as such it is UNDUE regardless of the notability of the official. Seraphim System ^(talk) 08:32, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Correct. Notability = what can have its own separate article. As I suggested in above comment, the quote (or a paraphrase) could be included as a chronological datum (especially if the statement was issued in response to something in particular), or in a section on controversies. But WP can't unduly list it as a potential "cause"; the notion is rather non-sensical and oppressive.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  20:19, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

It was stated as a cause by the minister. I suggested a "possible causes" heading and in any case attributing this. The RfC is on inclusion, not any particular heading choice. Finally, I would like to note that many of the comments here are on a IDONTLIKE and OR vein - it is not our purpose in Wikipedia to assess the effectiveness or appropriateness of possible policy, we follow the sources.Icewhiz (talk) 20:28, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

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

UAE minister position

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

---

@TompaDompa: This is not one person - it is the UAE minster of tolerance - the type of official who controls mosques in the UAE. The UAE, incidentally passed a law today to further increase such control [4] today. The UAE has also banned the Muslim brotherhood - including several European Muslim orgs - [5] e.g. Islamic Relief UK, The Cordoba Foundation (TCF) in Britain., Muslim Association of Britain (MAB), The Islamic Society in Denmark (Det Islamiske Trossamfund, DIT), Islamic Society of Germany (Islamische Gemeinschaft Deutschland), The League of Muslims in Belgium (La Ligue des Mussulmans de Belgique, LMB), etc. Being a Muslim nation (historicallly and at present) in a turbulent region the UAE has quite a bit of Islamic experience. At present - the article is missing possible causation and background - more should be added, not removed.Icewhiz (talk) 21:40, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

That is still only a single person. It is also pure conjecture. I don't see how it can pass WP:NPOV, at least in its current form. A dearth of content should not be viewed as a reason to add low-quality content. TompaDompa (talk) 22:02, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

This is beyond a single person - this is government policy. You seem to be confusing editor NPOV (and the current text is NPOV) and the POV of the position quoted.Icewhiz (talk) 22:06, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

The reason I don't think it passes WP:NPOV is that I think it gives WP:UNDUE weight to the minister's conjecture. TompaDompa (talk) 22:21, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Well - this is the government position of a large Muslim country whose policy is echoed by others. This is not a small minority viewpoint. The article should perhaps have several additional viewpoints of the causes listed - but this particular one of a very high ranking member of UAE government, representing his country's official stance (which also included outlawing various European organizations), is clearly DUEish.Icewhiz (talk) 22:28, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Is it? To me, it's not really that different from if the United States Secretary of Transportation said something about the role of legislation in terrorists' use of vehicles in attacks. TompaDompa (talk) 22:31, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

The DoT does not regulate vehicles in regards to purposeful violence and terror. The UAE on the other hand controls mosques to reduce violence, terror, and subversion / threats to the UAE regime - as well as using said control as a positive tool to push the regime's message - for instance just last week President Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan instructed all the mosques in the UAE to pray for rain, and they all complied - [6][7]... And the UAE's mosque control practices are similar to several other middle eastern countries that exert state control over imams (both in selection and in approved messaging), so this is not UAE specific.Icewhiz (talk) 22:43, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Sure, but it still boils down to a minister saying "We do this, and you don't. You have that problem, and we don't." TompaDompa (talk) 22:53, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Considering said problem is the article's subject, this seems a relevant position from a highly notable individual representing a clearly relevant country. Perhaps other viewpoints exist on the causes - we should seek them out, instead of trying to nuke each notable possible cause.Icewhiz (talk) 23:00, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Errrr Mr UAE minister, we don't regulate ANY religious practitioners in the UK, or most of Europe. If preachers go 'off-topic' to promoting violence against the state or against other people, they are breaking laws like any other citizen and are tried like other citizens. UAE is a (relatively) autocratic and theocratic state, most European countries are liberal democracies. Are you REALLY suggesting that the opinion of this one man actually offers any insight into causes or motivations - or cures? WP:WEIGHT comes to mind. Pincrete (talk) 23:15, 15 November 2017 (UTC)… … … ps every time there is a shooting in the US, let's find some European commentator saying "it's your own fault, why don't you regulate guns like we do?" Pincrete (talk) 23:23, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I would disagree with your assessment that it is a relevant position from a highly notable individual representing a clearly relevant country. I would also disagree that we should seek out other viewpoints on causes – I'm sure lots of people have more or less well-founded opinions, and I don't think it is appropriate for this article to have a section that essentially acts as a repository for conjecture. Should we find something substantive (i.e. more than just opinions and conjecture, of which there is an overabundance), I would be in favour of including that. TompaDompa (talk) 23:20, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

btw, the minister is fairly ill-informed, or at least out of date. With notorious exceptions 10-15 years ago, there are now few mosques (none?), certainly in the UK, which are criticised for formenting/promoting violent Islamic teachings. Pincrete (talk) 17:18, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

It is not our place to judge whethet the UAE's position is correct, however when we have a significant gvmt position, and no this is not an individual's position, we should certainly represent it - particularly when the article is so short and when we do not have adequate coverage of causes and in light of efforts to counter systemic bias. "He's ill informed" is not wiki polucy.Icewhiz (talk) 19:01, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes I know we don't, that's why it says 'btw'. Any balanced and reasonably full account of the causes of IT in Europe, would probably NOT be suitable for this article, but to begin by quoting the opinions of a minister of an autocratic, theocratic, middle eastern country, which operates Sharia law, and who has no European-specific knowledge or experience doesn't seem like a very good start. Has any European politician, historian or scholar endorsed his view ?Pincrete (talk) 22:25, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

UAE is not theocratic (they do exert control on mosques for various regime ends, but are not a theocracy by any stretch). UAE is definitely well versed both in Islam and in counter-terror. We shouldn't only add views endorsed by Europeans - that would cause a large systemic bias here - however I'm sure we'll find some endorsers (mosque control is not a new concept - outside the west it is quite established, and in the west there was talk and some action post 9/11 and 7/7). The section should, of course, be expanded - and when it is expanded the UAE's minister of tolerance perhaps shouldn't be the first view to lead off.Icewhiz (talk) 22:21, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh please! Of course the rot really set in in Europe when we abolished the Spanish Inquisition and got rid of the Star Chamber hundreds of years ago! Can we look forward to more advice from the UAE on how to reduce sexually transmitted disease in Europe, a country that practises Stoning? The idea that European govts should hand out licences to religious teachers (or should that only be Mosques?) would be greeted by howls of derision from Christians, Jews, Buddhists, whoever and atheists alike in Europe. Babies and bathwaters come to mind in even trying to take the minister seriously.

Political discord could also be reduced by re-instating UAE-style Absolute Monarchy, after all, no viewpoint should be dismissed - unless of course it is given zero WEIGHT by anyone who knows anything about the subject. Pincrete (talk) 23:06, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Problematic edits

User:AadaamS, this series of edits is problematic for a number of reasons.

Firstly, the Malaysian scholar's opinions might be valid on a more general article, like Islamism, but what value do they have here. This article doesn't attempt to go into the reasons for Islamic terrorism in Europe, and if it did it would use 'expert' testimony on European Is-ter. Since AFAIK no significant European source has ever dismissed concern about Is-terrorism as 'Islamaphobia', why would this persons opinion refuting it be notable? Additionally, he is specifically talking about Malaysia at some points, so in short why is his opinion notable?

Secondly, iro 2017 Turku stabbing, we don't interpret available evidence. One of the standards of this page is that a reliable authority should characterise an incident as Is-ter, or a close synonym, and that we should say who described it thus, ie police, govt or Europol. That is not the case here as yet, whether because of the mental health issue, or for other reasons, Finnish authorities have not done so. It is not up to us to pre-empt them by assessing available evidence (Koran, Isis material found on laptop etc), that is the very definition of WP:OR.

Thirdly, the recent arrests in Schwerin and Karlsruhe are proof of arrests, not of plots. The section is called 'plots' not 'alleged plots'. Much of the material in that section has actually never been updated, so we have no idea whether a trial ever took place, nor what its outcome was, but it makes things worse if everytime there is an arrest, it gets entered here. A paricularly silly example of what happens if we do that is chronicled here.

Lastly, whilst the new graph might in future be a good solution, the existing graph is quite big enough and clear enough to make its point. I'm going to revert your edits pending discussion here. Pincrete (talk) 14:13, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Turku is Islamist - [8] “The suspect’s profile is similar to that of several other recent radical Islamist terror attacks that have taken place in Europe,” Director Antti Pelttari from the Finnish Security Intelligence Service told a news conference.. Regarding plots - plots usually are not carried out but are thwarted (as are several other in the article).Icewhiz (talk) 14:44, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Profile is similar does not mean this is. If we have criteria for inclusion, we stick to them. Since there will probably be a trial, we'll all know in good time. The 'plots' that remain - even when we don't have any 'update', at least have a linked article to give a fuller account. Do you realise what % of arrests lead to no trial and no conviction, not only in this topic area, but in all crimes? Pincrete (talk) 15:08, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

He said "several other recent radical Islamist terror attacks" - ergo this attack is also a "radical Islamist terror attack".Icewhiz (talk) 15:11, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

That is pure synth! The probability is that this will turn out to be Is-related, Europol has a looser definition than many govt's, relying on 'related' rather than 'proven', if and when they include Turku, we can give an attributed account of who said what, until then we wait IMO. In the middle of last year (if I remember correctly), we were listing almost double the incidents that any competent authority was listing. That doesn't concern you? Pincrete (talk) 15:24, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Clearly a text-based graph is easier to maintain, simply add new year & value as Europol TE-SAT reports are released. AadaamS (talk) 21:44, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

The source stated that western politicians are of the opinion that the religion and the violence are not linked. This article doesn't attempt to go into the reasons for Islamic terrorism in Europe, - that's right, but it should. The article subject (the title) does not preclude writing about reasons for extremism. AadaamS (talk) 21:47, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

If there are criteria for inclusion, please list them on the talk page. Preferably in a way that doesn't get archived away. Is ENWP really more concerned with the label than the factual circumstances of an attack? If the factual circumstances are that he was shouting Quranic verses during the attack, how is ENWP not to classify it as islamist? Imho, the attacker need not have militant jihadism as the only motive for the attack to be on this list, perpetrators may additionally be retarded or mentally ill, then the same attack could potentially be on several lists. AadaamS (talk) 07:58, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

"If the factual circumstances are that he was shouting Quranic verses during the attack, how is ENWP not to classify it as islamist" ... because that would be the definition of WP:SYNTH. The sources must apply the label themselves. Preferably, they're being a secondary source, reporting the primary source of some investigators who applied the label. We, as an encyclopedia, are a tertiary source. If, in an article for this event, you wish to state factual circumstances, do so. But the only criteria for this list is that RS label the event as Islamist terrorism. EvergreenFir (talk) 08:33, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

In order to avoid these repeated arguements of what constitutes Islamic Terror and what sort of declarations we accept for said designation (media? prosecution? investigators? Investigative authorities in particular are not obliged to designate a terror attack as Islamic - as there is not separate criminal offence for Islamic (vs. non-Islamic) attacks).... We probably should rename the article (and modify scope) to Terrorism by Muslims in Europe (2014–present) - which is a much cleaner and easier inclusion criteria.Icewhiz (talk) 08:38, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

No, as then it would be an indiscriminate list. We usually don't create lists of events based on demographics of people related to it. It would actually make more sense, in terms of demographic trends, to make Terrorism by men in Europe (2014–present) or Terrorism by young adults in Europe (2014–present). EvergreenFir (talk) 08:41, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

OR aside, RSes treat the aspect of Islam in these attacks.Icewhiz (talk) 08:44, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

So the criterion to include on this list is that RS label the event as Islamist terrorism. What is then counted as sufficiently RS? Political scientists? Newsitems? Chiefs of police? Judges? Commentators? Please be specific and again, I think this talk page should have this added at the top for consistency plus ease of current and future maintenance. Clearly an Indonesian scholar thinks Western authorities "pretend" some attacks are not linked to Islam, how does that affect our ability to maintain this article? Is it, with respect to the opinion by the Indonesian scholar, reasonable to only look at label but not the facts when facts are supported by WP:RS? If an attack is not listed here because of label issues, where should it then be listed? AadaamS (talk) 11:32, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

RS news sources treat the possibility of these events being Islamist in nature, so do police, practically from day one. That is the question news sources/authorities want an answer to. An explicit statement either from police/authorities or Europol enables us to go beyond saying yes/no. It enables us to say who and why it was deemed thus. Without such a safeguard we are falling back on individual editor's assessing the likelihood based on initial reports of - often circumstantial - evidence on day one. Where there is a related article, it is at least possible to deal with the nuance of the situation, where there is not, individual editors are de facto deciding that they know more than the legal authorities. The individual police office in Turku, for example is clearly saying that 'Islamism' is one of his 'lines of enquiry'. We don't decide to categorise something as a murder solely because the police think there are suspicious circumstances to a death. Pincrete (talk) 14:26, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

A WP RS source

Material from this report could be used in the article. https://ctc.usma.edu/app/uploads/2018/02/CTC-Beyond-the-Caliphate-Belgium.pdf AadaamS (talk) 06:54, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 March 2018

Sundeepnor (talk) 19:31, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:38, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

2017 terrorist plots in France - 20 plots foiled (please update article)

please update, the terrorist plot foiled in france for 2017 was 20 (in the article said only part of 2017) source: https://www.20minutes.fr/societe/2227167-20180225-terrorisme-deux-projets-attentats-dejoues-depuis-debut-janvier-france Killy-the-frog (talk) 04:45, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Killy-the-frog since you seem to have a reliable source, go ahead and do a WP:BOLD edit. You have as much right to fix and edit mistakes as anyone else. Thanks for the find! AadaamS (talk) 05:45, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

AadaamS Sadly, the article is protected and I can not edit it. otherwise I will have done directly the edit. So I write my comment here, hoping that someone with the edition right do it Killy-the-frog (talk) 07:13, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Killy-the-frog fair enough, I can help out. I can write and read French to some degree, I wonder if there are more official reports available from the Gendarmerie National or official police documents detailing this? I've tried to Google for official French documents produced by state authorities, but I haven't had much luck. Here's an example what I'm looking for, something like the TE SAT reports by Europol. Do you know any like this? (of course, assuming that -the-frog in your name indicates that French is your native language). Thankful for any help. AadaamS (talk) 17:51, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

AadaamS in the article I point out it is written "Vingt attentats avaient été déjoués en France en 2017, selon les chiffres fournis début janvier par Gérard Collomb." which mean that according to Gérard Collomb (who is the french interior minister, the minister of police let's say, there has been 20 terrorist plot foiled" if you search on google "Vingt attentats déjoués en France en 2017" you can find many articles speaking of it, including one from le figaro (one of the most famous french newspaper) http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-actu/2018/01/08/97001-20180108FILWWW00270-vingt-attentats-dejoues-en-france-en-2017.php and yes, I am native french, so I have put "-the-frog" at the end of my nickname, just to be kidding my American friends who call french "the froggy" Killy-the-frog (talk) 10:43, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Killy-the-frog Thanks, I have updated the article now. I was wondering, since Gérard Collomb is the minster of the interior, if that ministry, or perhaps DGSI, produces an official report which details the foiled plots? Many plots are missing from the list. AadaamS (talk) 06:41, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

AadaamS Maybe there is, but I do not know, I know that in the french newspaper comments some people were complaining to not have the details, and some were having doubt (always people see plot everywhere), but as it is clairly stated that this figure is according to Gérard Collomb, then for me it is not a problem in the wikipedia article. if you find somewhere the details of all these plots, thank to you let me know here :) have a nice day Killy-the-frog (talk) 10:39, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

No lead section?

Why there is an overview section, but no lead?GreyShark (dibra) 19:52, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Good question! There isn't (despite numerous GF attempts to do so), much agreement as to what the purpose of the list is (why 2014? why geographical Europe etc). One obvious contender for a lead would be stating what the inclusion criteria are. The article also states that it is "Syrian spillover", but does nothing to explain "how". Pincrete (talk) 15:14, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

There seems to be an underlying disagreement between editors on what constitutes Islamic terrorism and how might string together commentary in newspapers regarding the underlying causes and trends. The article could use some strong scholarly sources, which unfortunately are just recently emerging (as such phenomena is usually studied at a lag from current events). Perhaps we could use this - Nesser, Petter, Anne Stenersen, and Emilie Oftedal. "Jihadi Terrorism in Europe: The IS-Effect." Perspectives on Terrorism 10.6 (2016). which is directly on the subject, current, and fairly widely cited for a 2016 paper (19 citations).Icewhiz (talk) 15:41, 31 December 2017 (UTC) Note that this article uses 2013 as the switch over year from AQ to IS, but does note that 2014-16 is there has never been higher numbers of attack plots per year than in 2014-16 - interesting not regarding our start bracket year (which we discussed previously).Icewhiz (talk) 15:44, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure that anyone disagrees about what constitutes I-T, it's a 'catch all' term covering A-Q, IS affiliates, Russia and Turkey specific groups and lone-wolves symmpathetic to one of these, and each country is defining the term slightly differently. The source you cite is largely IS-specific, it covers a specific period (maninly 2014-16), it claims a marked increase in online radicalisation - which happens to contradict a recent addition which claims that most radicalisation is based on personal contact with radical preachers and little is online - which is true overall? I think that a good start for the lead would be to define what it is a list of, what our criteria for inclusion are. There isn't much point in us overlapping with other pages about AQ, IS etc. Pincrete (talk) 17:09, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

If reliable sources cite different reasons for radicalization, we could still write about those reasons in the article. We should clearly state that experts disagree about which one is the most important mechanism, that's not a reason to write nothing. There will be overlap because one piece of information may be within the scope of several articles. AadaamS (talk) 17:03, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Pincrete and Icewhiz, I think since this is an article about recent I-T, since this article is from 2014- onwards, a source which details 2014-2016 is appropriate. AadaamS (talk) 05:48, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Pincrete and Icewhiz, what about adding the different views of experts, that some radicalisation happens online and other with personal connections. AadaamS (talk) 17:28, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

If it is backed up with sources, I say go for it. Be BOLD.Icewhiz (talk) 17:36, 23 March 2018 (UTC)