Talk:Islamic terrorism in Europe/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

RfC on scope

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.

---

What should the scope of this article be? See below for possible alternatives. TompaDompa (talk) 02:43, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

This article lacks a clear and specific scope. The first paragraph in the WP:LEAD (version as of my writing this) gives a few different possibilities – (1) a period of increased terrorist activity, (2) part of the spillover of the Syrian Civil War, (3) linked to the rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, or (4) linked to the European migrant crisis. We need to pick one of those as the scope, and stick to it. I don't believe anyone thinks (4) is a good option, but the other three are all possible. The main difference is what acts of terrorism would be included based on the perpetrators' allegiance:

• Option (1)—a period of increased terrorist activity—would include unaffiliated terrorists, Al-Qaeda, ISIL, the Taliban, Hezbollah, and others.
• Option (2)—part of the spillover of the Syrian Civil War—would include Hezbollah, ISIL, and Al-Qaeda, but not unaffiliated terrorists or the Taliban.
• Option (3)—linked to the rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant—would only include ISIL.

I want to clarify: I'm not looking to determine what the scope is (because right now it's a mess), but establish WP:CONSENSUS as to what it should be. In other words, don't argue along the lines of "The title is X, and therefore this is about...". TompaDompa (talk) 00:42, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• I prefer Option (1). ISIL has lead to a rise of popularity for Jihad in general. There is not always a visible link to ISIL. It is no coincidence that the number of ISIL unaffiliated terror attacks (lone wolfs) also increased in the last years compared to the 90s and 2000s. Arcadius Romanus (talk) 01:34, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - editors cannot decide the topic, but rather the sources, and sources stand for Jihadist terror (motivated by Sunni extremism). I'm familiar with Al-Qaeda and ISIL terror activity in this regard and sympathizers (lone wolves), but we should not link this with Hezbollah and Taliban, especially since those are pretty inactive in Europe recently. So it is Option (2), but excluding Hezbollah which is a Shi'ite terror group with different ambitions and enemy with both Al-Qaeda and ISIL.GreyShark (dibra) 19:01, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree about sources deciding, but different sources have different scopes as well. While I have yet to see any that don't include ISIL in their scope, the inclusion of al-Qaeda is not universal. Hence, we do have to decide as editors which sources' scope to follow, even though—as you rightly point out—we cannot pick a scope that doesn't reflect any of the sources. See also my comment below. TompaDompa (talk) 13:45, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

• I do agree with GreyShark 's comment. Wykx (talk) 21:51, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

All in all, I see at least four issues:

1. Islamic: Similar to the above, what do the terrorists need to be in order for their acts to qualify for this article – Muslims, or Islamists, or Salafi jihadists, or members of ISIL, or something else?
2. terrorism: As noted above, the list currently includes events that are not terrorism, though they are violent crimes. I'll quote WP:LISTCRITERIA: In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed (for example, lists of unusual things or terrorist incidents), it is especially important that inclusion be based on reliable sources given with inline citations for each item. I don't think it has escaped anybody's notice that editors disagreeing about whether something should be included or not is a regular occurrence on this article.
3. in Europe: There has been some discussion about whether Turkey should be included. At the moment, it seems like the compromise is to include Istanbul, but exclude Anatolia. At any rate, we need to decide something concrete.
4. (2014–present): In 20 years' time, do we want this to read "(during the Syrian Civil War)" or "(since 2014)"?

In order to enforce the agreed-upon scope, clear and specific inclusion criteria (and possibly also exclusion critera) would be necessary, though we obviously have to get the scope established first. TompaDompa (talk) 00:42, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

• comment:

1. Islamic: If the attack was related to Islamic Fundamentalism.
2. Terror: If official sources call it an act of terror or terror attack. This would not include if a Muslims kills his wife over alimony. If it involves money, drugs or people close the person it is an ordinary violent crime.
3. Europe: I am against adding Turkey. Just adding Istanbul is confusing. We should only add countries where the majority of people lives on the European continent.
4. (2014–present): Till the number of attacks falls back to previous levels. Arcadius Romanus (talk) 01:34, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

• comment:

1. Islamic: If the attack was Islamism-related.
2. Terror: If official sources call it an act of terror or terror attack. This would not include if a Muslims kills his wife over alimony. If it involves money, drugs or people close the person it is an ordinary violent crime.
3. Europe: Turkey is not in Europe (though Ceuta and Melilla are.)
4. (2014–present): Till the number of attacks falls back to previous levels.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:30, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

• comment:

1. Islamic: If the attack was carried out inn the name of Islam.
2. Terror: If official sources call it an act of terror or terror attack, and no other crimes.
3. Europe: Attacks that occur in Europe.
4. (2014–present): No, a bad idea. This is too open ended. Why is 2014 the start point?Slatersteven (talk) 15:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

• comment:

1. Islamic: Yes, if the attack was Islamism-related.
2. Terror: If official sources call it an act of terror or terror attack. This would not include if a Muslims kills his wife over alimony. If it involves money, drugs or people close the person it is an ordinary violent crime.
3. Europe: All European territory (Istanbul is city in Europe) + overseas territories of Western European countries (French Guiana, Greenland, Falklands, Ceuta and etc if any Islamist attack will be occured there) and Asian part of Russia (Siberia, Russian Far East and etc if any Islamist attack will be occured there, at the moment, one terrorist plot on Russian Far East was prevented by the FSB).
4. (2014–present): I prefer "during the Arab Winter", because it's more better shows that it's not just Islamist terrorism like French 1990's or Russian 2000's , it's spillover of instability in the Middle East. TonyaJaneMelbourne (talk) 20:30, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Present situation is that ANY tie, regardless of how tenuous, to Islam and any mention of the possibility of an event being 'terrorist' appeard to be the present criteria for inclusion, all presented without qualification or context. There is also a real problem with creditting ISIS, since they claim responsibility for nearly every event although investigators are able to find no, or very speculative connections even among 'lone wolves'. Pincrete (talk) 12:29, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Islamist. Not Islamic or "Islamism-related". There's an important distinction. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:38, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

With respect, this is window dressing IMO. Neither sources nor readers make much distinction between '-ic terrorism' and '-ism-related terrorism', and people who are unable/unwilling to understand that '-ic terrorism' is not the same as 'Islam' are unlikely to change their PoV as a result of a slightly modified adjective. The much bigger problem here is poor sources claiming that unnamed witnesses, distinctly heard 'God is great' being yelled, so it must be terrorism and must be related to Islam, without any attempt at qualification, Yeah? Also other problems of that kind, lack of 'follow through' (was anyone prosecuted, or did the police decide there was 'no case'?), speculation stated as fact etc. Pincrete (talk) 10:25, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

While I agree that all of those are valid issues that should be addressed, nothing prevents us addressing them while also being accurate with regard to terminology; and doing so would also keep this article in line with List of Islamist terrorist attacks. Just because sources are careless doesn't mean Wikipedia should be. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:38, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

• Comments Many editors above are using the terms 'terror' or 'terror attack'. In my experience these are used by news sources when they don't know what to say, it implies 'terrorism' without having the courage to say it. We should not go down that road IMO, 'terrorism' is fairly precise, (acts of violence against people or property done for political motives), we should stick to that. I believe we should not include Turkey, it is substantially geographically and politically outside Europe. The article should be limited to 'Islamic/ism' terrorism, but even more important than that restriction IMO are the criteria for deciding what is/isn't 'Islamic terrorism'. The history of this article is individual editors/poor sources deciding whether something is/isn't, with little attempt at context (ie why/who thinks this is 'Islamic'. Pincrete (talk) 17:25, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

• Comments Re inclusion criteria, why reinvent the wheel. List of Islamist terrorist attacks has clear inclusion criteria - an incident must be identified as being both Islamist in nature and a terrorist attack, in the same reliable source. That twin requirement cuts down hugely on WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:OR. The list in this article, at present, is a collection of Islamist terrorist attacks and other incidents where we - and investigators, magistrates, courts and media - have no idea of the motive for the attack, where it's even referenced. (And ISIL/ISIS/Daesh claiming responsibility isn't sufficient). In the more discursive part of the article, we should also outline the comparatively low level of terrorism-related incidents and deaths in the last decade compared to earlier years. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:16, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Counting Terror Deaths: More or Less? BBC R4 broadcast August 2016 Is 2016 an unusually deadly year for terrorism? In a joint investigation with BBC Newsbeat and BBC Monitoring, we've analysed nearly 25,000 news articles to assess whether 2016 so far has been a unusually deadly year for terrorism. It certainly feels like it. But what do the numbers say? We estimate that, between January and July this year, 892 people died in terrorist attacks in Europe - making it the most deadly first seven months of a year since 1994. But the vast majority of those deaths have been in Turkey. The number for Western Europe is 143, which is lower than many years in the 1970s. The 2015-16 figures for France were exceptionally high of course, but overall it is simply a myth that either attacks or deaths have been high or increasing in W.Europe since 2014, as anyone living in UK, NI or IRep probably knew already. The 'who' and 'how' and 'why' and 'where' may have changed, the 'danger level' has not. Pincrete (talk) 08:15, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

• comment:

1. Islamic: Clearly motivated by Islamic Fundamentalism, though i would prefer a more precise term Salafi Jihadism for this case.
2. Terror: Include cases, which are proven or suspected as terror acts; For this matter attacks on security forces in public places is also terror, as it aims to terrorize the population.
3. Europe: EU+UK, Balkans, Possibly Russia , but certainly excluding Turkey (which has Turkey-ISIL conflict to deal with it).
4. (2014–present): Beginning 2014 (some sources say 2015) and until the number of attacks falls back to previous levels.GreyShark (dibra) 18:57, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

• comment:

1. Islamic: I prefer a broader range: motivated by strong anti-Western feelings that are rife in countries where Islam is the dominant religion. So not necessarily a clear link to IS or mentioning "in the name of Islam" should have been established. Also because in some cases this can not be proven (for example because of death of the terrorists). This also fits the " related to the migrants crisis" criteria in sentence one. Alternatively, a list of terrorist attacks by migrants from Islamic countries (or their offspring) against Western societies could be made, including both clear Islam motivated attacks as well as attack where this is less or not clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.217.126.119 (talk) 14:39, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Regarding sources

This should hopefully go without saying, but the WP:Reliable sources on the scope are not the news media, but agencies involved in counterterrorism/intelligence (both national and supranational, e.g. MI5 and Interpol, respectively) and academia (e.g. the UCDP). In other words, when it comes to a pattern in terrorism activity, we leave ascertaining the nature of that pattern to those sources—not to the news media.

With that in mind, I looked into what scopes some such sources have. Some of these are already cited in the article.

• Academic: ISIL-related plots and attacks in the West (specified as Western Europe, North America, and Australia/New Zealand) since 2011 (though the earliest such attack they identified was in September 2012).
• Academic: The UCDP lists nothing remotely similar to this article's current scope, or any of the suggested ones. They have an IS - Civilians entry including several of the attacks on our list, but that one starts in 2004 and is not limited to Europe.
• Academic: Jihadist terrorism in the West in general and France in particular, starting in 2005 (though in particular since 2015).
• Agency: Europol releases yearly reports on all terrorist activity (i.e. failed, foiled, and completed attacks) in the European Union (they are, after all, an EU agency). They list a category of terrorism that has variously been called "Islamist terrorism" (2007–2011 reports, i.e. terrorism 2006–2010), "Religiously inspired terrorism" (2012–2015 reports, i.e. terrorism 2011–2014), and "Jihadist terrorism" (2016–2017 reports, i.e. terrorism 2015–2016). It is worth noting that while their scope is limited to the EU when it comes to statistics (again, Europol is an EU agency), their scope when analysing trends and assessing threats extends beyond the borders of the EU. With regards to this category of terrorism, they have made the observation that terrorist groups have made calls for attacks in the West (specified as: Europe, as well as Australia, Canada and the USA) since at least their 2014 report (i.e. terrorism in 2013), and this carries on through the 2017 report (terrorism in 2016), which goes on to discuss the specific example of the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting.

Considering the above, I make the following observations as to what I believe best reflects the sources:

• Ideologically, the scope should be jihadism. Focus should be especially on ISIL, but not to the exclusion of other actors such as AQAP.
• Geographically, the scope should be "the West". That is to say that unlike the current list, Turkey and Russia should be excluded, and the US and Australia should be included. This is how the sources view and describe the matter in geopolitical terms.
• Temporally, there does not seem to be any even rough consensus as to the start date. The current one – 2014 – seems however to be an arbitrary choice which is not supported by reliable sources.

Feel free to look into further sources like these and see if a clearer picture emerges. TompaDompa (talk) 23:25, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

References

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.

Buckingham Palace Attempted Attack

So we just gonna ignore this one as well as the one in Belgium?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41055985 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.33.139.205 (talk) 16:26, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree, see a bit above on this page, where Brussels and London are addressed and being discussed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.217.126.119 (talk) 16:35, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Surgut, Russia

i have removed the section which read as below, and removed the referencing and formatting from this section. There were only two references which can be viewed in the editing history, and they were insufficient for the claims asserted.

A knife attack was reported in the western Siberia city of Surgut. The suspect was later shot down by SITE officials after injuring 7 civilians.

A video released days later showed a man declaring their allegiance to ISIL and describing benefits to using "primitive weapons," and was identified by SITE officials as the perpetrator killed that day.

This is not enough detail or verification to warrant inclusion on this list. Siberia is not Europe. This is also a recentisim bandwagoning addition, of a mere mews story. A man attacks people in a remote part of an enormous country, and is elevated to world wide news coverage and elevated to being a terrorist. This is the definition of media hype and over-blowing. Sport and politics (talk) 12:08, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

First. If an Islamist will occure a massacre in the streets of Cayenne (French Guiana), then you also will not include this hypothetical incident in the list? The European country is attacked, and what does it matter which part of the country was attacked? Imagine an incident in overseas territory of any Western European country and answer yourself to the question why this incident should be included. How does the islamist terrorist incident in the Metropole of a European country differ from the incident in its overseas territory? Double standards?

Second. Russian authorities almost never recognize the fact of the terrorist attack on its territory, unless it is an explosion or hostage taking. And in general, the Russian authorities do not like to recognize the fact of the terrorist attack. A vivid example A321 bombing, when the Russian authorities MONTH denied that this was a terrorist act. Media policy of the Russian authorities: "There is almost no terrorism in Russia, but look at Europe, how everything is bad there.".

Third. I do not know if this was reported in Western media, but in Russian media it is already known that the name of attacker is Artur Gadzhiev, originally from a village in Dagestan. Gadzhiev's father is registered as a radical Islamist, it's official. Over ten people were detained on suspicion of complicity in this attack. I can cite references to Russian sources, if you are interested in it.

Fourth. The Head of The Investigative Committee of Russia Alexander Bastrykin took Surgut incident under his personal control. He does this only and only when something very serious happens in Russia.

I apologize for my humble English. I just wanted to express my opinion about the incident in Russia as a person living in Russia. Your position seemed to me one-sided and unfair. --TonyaJaneMelbourne (talk) 16:11, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

It is simple, just saying it is terrorism is not enough, the authorities saying it is terrorism when it is not usually done is not enough, adding it because for perceived bias correction in the article is not enough. An investigator taking over does not elevate this to warrant inclusion. This incident first and foremost must be proven to be terrorism, and then must be proved to be islamic terrorism, and then must take place in Europe, At the moment it is failing inclusion on this page for failing the inclusion criteria. Sport and politics (talk) 08:30, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Adding London sword attack of police officers, 25 August 2017, to the list

Man, repeatedly shouting "Allahu Akbar" attacks police officers with 4 foot sword, who incapacitate him with CS spray. Arrested under terrorist act. I think it should be added to the list.

reference: http://news.met.police.uk/news/update-investigation-into-incident-near-buckingham-palace-256855

Just no, just no. This is another addition proposed which is bandwagon jumping, one man being a criminal is not terrorism, it is just a knife attack. If he had shouted "Buddha is great or this is for Buddha". Would that make it Buddhist terrorism? get some perspective here. Also it was not a 'sword' that is media sensationalism. The term Sword is also not carried in multiple news reports for example Sky News use knife not Sword in their most recent news report. --Sport and politics (talk) 12:08, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

@Sport and Politics: there is no Buddhist terrorism or Buddhist attacks of random European citizens/soldiers at all. But there is an increasing amount of such attacks by migrants with Islamic roots. To avoid further discussion about whether an attack is Islamic or not and can be listed here or not, I believe it is better to make a new list of attacks in Europe by immigrants (or their offspring) that live(d) in Islamic culture. Regardless if the attack is clearly proven linked to IS or not. Clashes of cultures have been the cause of violence throughout the centuries. The current attacks against random citizens in Europe can be seen as part of such collision: between the European culture and the Islamic culture (where anti-Western feelings are rife). The new list should exclude criminal and psychiatric cases and focus on deliberate attacks by immigrants with roots in the Islamic world/culture, on random European citizens/police men/soldiers (=terror). The European citizens then have a complete list of attacks against European societies. Such a list can also include cases where no proven link to IS has been found and also include Turku, Brussels, London. Only with complete information European citizens can decide whether this effect of migration to Europe is still within acceptable range or not. And make political choices based on that.

Police stated: “The incident is being treated as terrorism but we will remain open minded while the investigation continues.” [1] Alexpl (talk) 20:58, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

No, there isn't. Less than 2% of Islamist terrorist attacks are in Europe, and the number of terrorist attacks generally has fallen drastically in Europe since the 1970s, in fact. Your proposed new list would seem to fall foul of WP:OR and wP:SYNTH, not to mention that it obviously runs directly against wP:NPOV. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:39, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

There is an increase of attacks like the ones we have seen in the past few year and it is distinct from the terrorist attacks that Europe had in the past. That was often left wing, against NATO, against bankers. What we experience now has a totally different signature, targets and background. I see no reason why not to make a clear overview of this, showing only the facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.217.126.119 (talk) 07:02, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Claims are made, oh look more more more more terrorism. That is just anecdotal. Statistics from reliable independent third party sources are required. Media jumping an every brown person holding a knife in public, is not terrorism spiking, it is media coverage gone mad. Sport and politics (talk) 08:27, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with "a brown person holding a knife in public". Since a few years Europe is experiencing people with Islamic roots, attacking random civilians/soldiers. That is not regular crime. Therefore, these cases are under investigation as possible terrorism. Which is logical, especially if it is known that the perpetrator radicalized (Turku) or had 2 Qurans, yelled "Allahu Akbar" and the case was claimed by IS (as in the Brussels case, August 25 2017). It will be very easy to find reliable sources showing that these cases are under investigation as terrorist cases, no worries about that. Once clarified, they might end up here, they may be taken off the list, or no clear motive may be found, leaving room for speculation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.217.126.119 (talk) 16:31, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

There needs to be less overdramatising, the biggest thing any individual wants is media coverage, which is sensationalist, fear-mongering and unnecessary. these are only done to make a media splash, and as soon as they are called what they are, a crime by a criminal, or an incident from an ill person. Holding a religious text does not make one a member of a religion, shouting religious words does not make one religious, attacking someone and shouting does not make one an extremist. Third party independent sources please. Not anecdotes, or personal perceptions. Sport and politics (talk) 16:46, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

No worries, there are plenty of sources showing these cases are under terrorism investigation and these will be included. Showing plain facts is not overdramatising, it is showing plain facts. And Wikipedia is about showing facts, whether people like them or not. Everyone can make its own personal perception, based on the facts. And yes: attacking random persons with the aim of killing them is, in this context, exactly the difference between extremists and non-extremists. Sources: Turku stabbing investigated as terrorism: Brussels attack being investigated as terrorism: (in the mean time also claimed by IS: ) London suspect held under Terrorism act

Primary source claims from organisations fail WP:primary. The claims must be from independent reliable third apart sources. In this case recent news coverage does not pass muster. Sport and politics (talk) 17:46, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I totally disagree: "Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate in any given instance is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense". In cases like this, it is very obvious that governmental sources that do the investigation are the most reliable sources when talking about a list of attacks that are being investigated as possible terrorism.

This is WP:recentism at its worse Wikipeidia is not a news site. This is not a place for editorials. Sport and politics (talk) 18:37, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

References

2017 Turku stabbing

Don't want to overstep 1RR.

2017 Turku stabbing should be removed from the List of attacks section as neither the cited source nor any reliable sources call it Islamic terrorism. It was re-added by an IP editor, saying "Scope of this page is NOT only proven islamic terrorism, it also includes terrorism related to the migrant crisis. This is clearly the case here". While the ongoing Talk:Islamic_terrorism_in_Europe_(2014–present)#RfC on scope notes that the current scope is ambiguous ("a mess"), I'm confident that the scope of this article is NOT any terrorism related to the migrant crisis (it isn't even an option on the table of the RfC). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:38, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I do not agree that the Turku attack should be removed. The first sentence of this page clearly mentions that attacks are included that are "linked to the European Migrant Crisis". The Turku attack was executed by a Moroccan man in an asylum procedure, and thus clearly linked to this migration crisis. I prefer to see the scope of this page broadened to terrorist acts against Western societies, executed by people with roots in Islamic culture: it is well known that in Islamic culture, anti-Western feelings are rife, resulting in violence, even over centuries. Such a broader scope will avoid ongoing discussion whether Islam itself is mentioned by the attacker or not: it is all about the anti-Western feelings in the Islamic world. In the Turku case it is clear that the terrorist was a migrant with roots in the Islamic culture, and the act was "terrorist", as stated by the Finnish police. So it is clearly related to the migrant crisis, and "Islamic" in this way. Also: many reports mention the man yelled "Allahu Akbar" but I believe it is better to wait for the official investigation about this part.

That's nice, but we don't need your agreement. We operate according to policies including WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV - verifiability, reliable sources and neutrality. Re the migrant crisis, the source used for that sentence itself says "ISIS clearly wants the European public to conflate refugees and terrorists, and it has been doing a disturbingly good job so far." The Islamophobic IP editor is doing the same. The source for the Finnish attack says - right after 'Interior Minister Paula Risikko described the suspect as "foreign-looking"' (that's supposed to be some sort of proof?!) "Finnish authorities have said, however, that it is too early to describe the incident as terrorism." Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:22, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

@Bastun: the attack is investigated as terrorism now. But authorities or reliable sources have not concluded an Islamic motive, so the entry should stay off the list. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:42, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

201.20.39.236, see above. An attack "being investigated as terrorism" is, by definition, not yet known to be an Islamist terrorist attack. We need a source saying it is an Islamist terrorist attack. The criteria are pretty simple. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:59, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Bastun, see also Template:Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present) and Template:Campaignbox Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present) where, as one editor correctly noted, my reverting is beginning to exceed what is appropriate for one user. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:03, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

This was a foolish move. Finnusertop just urged Bastun to edit warring and he took the bait. I think it borders WP:DISRUPTIVE behavior from both. --201.20.39.236 (talk) 21:31, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I would agree with Bastun and Finnusertop here. Having followed it relatively closely, the Turku stabbing does not have a definite implication from any reliable source that it is an Islamist/Islamic attack. Best to just let the investigation progress. Shadowdasher (talk) 22:03, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

This is a pretty clear case of jumping the gun. Adding it under the heading "Suspected terrorism, currently under investigation" insinuates that the motive has been established, which is not the case here. There's also the issue of copying text verbatim from sources, which is a copyright violation. Finally, I'd like to point out that "terror attack" doesn't mean anything; it's a suggestive term news media use when saying "terrorism" would potentially be inaccurate/libellous. TompaDompa (talk) 02:16, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

If the IP-hopping anon editor persists in re-adding this prematurely, we should request protection for the page. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:00, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

TompaDompa you're simply abusing the article protection. There's neither consensus to remove the Turku entry, you creepy Islamophiliac. --201.20.39.236 (talk) 15:29, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey, WP:No personal attacks. How is it I've abused the article protection?
I suggest you read WP:ONUS, part of our WP:Verifiability policy, which states The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.. TompaDompa (talk) 16:18, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

@Bastun: I am not Islamophobic but want a clear and complete list of terrorist attacks that are related to migrants that have roots in Islamic countries. The first sentence of this article mentions that this article is also about terror related to the migrant crisis. This is clearly the case here so it fits the criteria of this site. If Turku is not included here, I will make a new list that specifically aims at such terror, regardless if they found a clear IS link or not. I think this solution can satisfy everyone: one list of acts that have clear links to IS, one list that shows all. The public has the right to see all the effect of migration from islamic countries so I believe it is important to have a complete list somewhere. Alternatively, an extra colum could be added here, where is show whether the event is clearly Islamic (in the sense of related to IS), or related to migration from Islamic countries. We can not make the world more nice by hiding events. By the way: information released August 21 shows that the Finnish Secret Service had received a tip about radicalization of the terrorist, but did not consider him dangerous (http://www.telegraaf.nl/buitenland/28987842/__Finse_politie_was_getipt__.html). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.217.126.119 (talk) 06:20, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

The first sentence of this article mentions that this article is also about terror related to the migrant crisis. No, it doesn't. The first paragraph reads: Europe has seen an upsurge of Islamic terrorist activity since 2014. The attacks have been considered a spillover of the Syrian Civil War and is also linked to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) as well as the European migrant crisis. That doesn't mean "this is an article about on the one hand Islamic terrorism and on the other hand terrorism related to the migrant crisis", but "this is an article about Islamic terrorism, which is considered related to—among other things—the migrant crisis".
With regards to making a new list, I don't think it's a good idea to start another article with a related scope while the scope for this article has yet to be determined. We should at the very least wait for the #RfC on scope to be closed first (it's on WP:Requests for closure already, so it shouldn't be too long). TompaDompa (talk) 08:46, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

User2534 can you please point to where an official source confirming this as a terrorist and Islamist attack? The source you're using doesn't appear to do so. Please see Talk:Islamic_terrorism_in_Europe_(2014–present)#RfC_on_scope - this is a community consensus for inclusion. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:29, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

As the summary says in the article "Turku suspect wanted to join Isis, called Finns infidels" warnings by several people to authorities about his radicalisation, open sympathies for ISIL, which has been confirmed by the Finnish Security Intelligence Service (Supo). The information supporting this is as good as many other attacks here, more detailed even perhaps. User2534 (talk) 16:48, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

So, in summary: no official source confirmed this as an Islamist terrorist attack. (Supo confirmed nothing, according to that source, other than they'd received a tip-off). Anything official? What's the problem with waiting for a trial? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:11, 29 August 2017 (UTC) Can you please self-revert? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:13, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

@User2534:? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:00, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Ok, @User2534: - the consensus is to not include this attack as it does not satisfy the requirements for inclusion, per policy. Stop edit warring over it. The page is subject to 1RR restrictions. Consider yourself warned. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:02, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Listing in section Counter-terrorism operations

The Counter-terrorism operations sections is wildly unverified as to their notability, wider coverage or general importance as regards to be notable events. Wikipeida is not a news site, and including an long laundry list of events which have a single news source only from the time the event happened, does not qualify an event for inclusion. The criteria for inclusion as listed at events notability, needs to be followed. The specific area of crime notability also needs to be followed. There needs to be a major pruning of this list, as most the contents is just events which happened, which fail in the above mentioned areas. Sport and politics (talk) 12:47, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

All of the events were official counter-terror operations. So highly relevant to this article. Please make a list with events that were crime related raids. --Arcadius Romanus (talk) 23:44, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Codswallop. Simply being a routine police event is not justification enough to include the event. it must meet the notability and sourcing standards of Wikipeida. The burden falls on the includer to show it meets the standards necessary for inclusion. It has been in other discussions pointing out the serious failings of a large number or sources used in this article. Sport and politics (talk) 10:59, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikiepida is not an indiscriminate collection of information or list of events, and simply having a single source does not automatically mean that an event is worth including on this article, verifiability does not automatically mean inclusion on Wikipeida. The information needs multiple independent source all reliably stating the information being asserted, along with the event in and of itself being more than routine news coverage and more than general police activities. Simply stating it has a source, is not enough for inclusion, the actual event must meet notability threshold, criteria, and standards. Some of these events fall far below this standard, and some of the events have no source whatsoever. The burden lies with the restorer or adder, to demonstrate the information meets the inclusion policies and guidelines for Wikipedia. Sport and politics (talk) 09:34, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I took a stab at cleaning it up. TompaDompa (talk) 10:26, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Good job. There are still a large number that appear to be entirely non-notable - basically arrests reported, without even knowing if charges were made and/or trials held. These should almost certainly be removed. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:54, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree, but I didn't want to remove it all at once in case of backlash. I removed a bunch more. TompaDompa (talk) 14:41, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you it is a sorry state when editors of an article fear a backlash for putting an article in a better position. Please feel free to continue, and remove ALL of the events which have no place on this article. Sport and politics (talk) 20:19, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Part of the military intervention against ISIL?

@AlexTref871: This edit doesn't make sense to me. In the interest of avoiding an WP:Edit war, I thought I'd bring it up here. Care to explain? TompaDompa (talk) 21:40, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry I deleted it before seing the talk page. I don't understand why it would be part of the military intervention. Wykx (talk) 21:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Addition of new information which needs discussing.

This edit has recently been made. It needs to be thoroughly discussed. The information aded is highly POV and controversial, and is incorrectly using sources to create a false narrative. The addition needs to be seen in a wider context that this is a highly controversial page, and topic, which results in all potentially controversial additions being discussed. The content of this addition feels like it has been discussed on similar talks before. Please discuss. Also remember the 1 Revert Rule. Sport and politics (talk) 10:18, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Content author @User2534: notification.

First, parts of the article have admittedly been poorly sourced earlier, which is why a lot of information has been removed in the last days. In response to this, particularly that the lead section was obliterated to a single brief sentence in the process, I have added multiple new sources which all directly support the content added in a bid to improve the article just to the basics of a Wikipedia article. Claims of a "false narrative" needs to be explained when the content added is written out black-in-white by numerous, if not all sources covering these events. User2534 (talk) 10:32, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

The false narrative being created is the increase in Islamic terrorism. The second of which is highly subjective and this article has had an extensive RfC on what is to be considered withing this article and the definition of Islamic terrorism. The additions regarding consider to be part of the ..... invite the user to question By whom, and it makes out opinions of journalists on the subject, and opinion pieces to be fact. This claim is highly disputed and has been discussed regarding this article before. Finally stating there has been an increase. This has again been discussed at length on this page, and all attempts by users to show empirical data on the matter have been shown to be flawed. Anecdotes from journalists, or opinions of it feels like there is more are unsuitable. For an increase to be shown the first thing which needs to be done is to set the geographic scope of the are being talked about, and the recent RfC was very unclear on that point. The mere fact that the claims are trying to be made over and over, should demonstrate that it it virtually impossible to pass the Wikipedia standards, to have the claims included. All the sources added together in the world could be used to try and assert the claim and they could come from the most reputable sources on the planet. That does though not mean they are not subject to verification, and the way they are used subject to POV and synthesis analysis. At the moment the assertions of a spill over are just that an assertion, the sources do not provide reliable proof of that. The claim of an increase are again just claims in the sources. even if they word it as fact. These proposed additions are similar to previous additions, which have been discussed. There must be a remembering that not all journalism is fact, and not all claims made by journalists are anything other than one journalists opinion, or the outlets opinion.

The Independent article has a title of Majority of Europeans believe increased migration raises terror threat, survey says. This is reporting a survey as fact and adding it without sources to try and assert opinion as fact. This is a violation of synthesis rules.

The time piece is an opinion piece by the author of the piece, even though it is dressed up different. The focuses very narrowly on specific events. In no way does that opinion piece equate to fact, simply because the author believes the claim they are making are fact. There is no explanation of how they reached the conclusion they come to or why they selected what they selected. IT is all opinion dressed up as fact.

The wall street journal piece is titled ....Transform Debate Over Europe’s Migration Crisis. Again not fact, just opinion and debate being asserted.

The times piece is very limited in scope and focuses on one individual in one incident. This does not mean the wider claim being asserted, of blame the migrant crisis.

The section beginning Major attacks committed by networks of terrorists include, that is a very leading sentiment. What is major? what is a network? Why only list the events that have been listed. This is primarily a list article, and the lists take care of the events which are subject to this article. There is no need to add POV by singling out specific parts of the lists in the article.

The sources used need to be used carefully, claiming links between events such as the BBC source, does not mean actual links exist. The links must be proved to exist. I also fail to see how that furthers this article in any way. This article is not for trying to link attacks it is a list article.

All in all while the author has tried their best here, they have not managed to actually assert anything useful to the article, the additions are things previously discussed on this page in different guises. the information especially the synthesised claims of link to the Syrian civil war and the migrant crisis need removing as soon as possible. The singling out of specific events, there is no objective basis for doing this on this list article, and as a result falls foul of point of view rules and undue weight, as who picks what is singled out.

Sport and politics (talk) 11:04, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Closed off topic Ad hominem comments --Sport and politics (talk) 11:36, 5 September 2017 (UTC) )

Well, admittedly if you had actually succeeded with having deleted the dozen or so articles about terror attacks that you unilaterally have nominated for deletion at AfD at the moment (all obviously overwhelming keep-votes), that might almost have been true. User2534 (talk) 11:26, 5 September 2017 (UTC) No personal comments. Any more and I will just file a report. This is not the place or the time, I suggest focusing on the content being discussed. Ad hominems show that there is no argument being put forward to counter act the points demonstrating the need to remove this edit in its entirety. Sport and politics (talk) 11:36, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Well I guess I'm just trying to figure out how it's even possible to argue against someone disputing the use of simple words like "major" and "network". How it's possible to argue against disputing that events linked together is inevitably partly a consideration. And how it's possible to argue against someone claiming that reliable sources are nothing more than "claims". I guess I'm just wondering how we can possibly improve an article if even reliable sources and the English dictionary is out the window. User2534 (talk) 11:56, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

There is an application of a so called obvious approach being attempted, where none of this is obvious. It is claims and counter claims. what does network mean. Is it 2 people? 10 people? 50 people? 500 people? 1 person in 1 country and 1 person in another? 500 people all in different countries? What is it? It is to broad a term, and has an the author clearly believes it has a common assumed meaning.

What is major, Is it a first event in a place? It a fortieth event in a place? Is it an event with a set number of dead people? Is it one with a set number of injured people? Does it have to last for a minimum time? Is it an event which uses a set method of attack? What is it? Saying oh it is obvious, is not the case as each person will have a different view on what that is. There must be an objective standard by whihc to place these events by to attach labels to them of this kind. Sport and politics (talk) 12:48, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

The material added looks to be well-sourced by User:User2534. I find it amusing that some editors may think WP:SYNTH applies to the WP:RS themselves.XavierItzm (talk) 12:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

The point being missed here is the sources can be from a high quality source as ever. It is how they are being used, and what the sources are saying. The sources are not conveying what is being presented. and the information in the sources is not fact in most of the cases it opinion dressed up as fact. Source is all well and good, but if the information does not reflect what is being claimed or the sources fail verification. then the sources are worthless. Sport and politics (talk) 12:37, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

The best way forward is to not use articles which are just reports of opinion polls, and claim that those opinion polls are cold hard fact, and proof of a claim being asserted, see the independent source as the example here. It is fine to make the claims but the claims are controversial. and the sources must not fall foul of synthesis rules, which is what is happening here. Multiple sources are being taken, with cherries picked from each of them, to claim a whole narrative. that is a big no-no. The hardest thing to realise is that some of the claim being asserted are un-provable, anecdotal feelings, and claims. which have no place on Wikipedia. These being alleged and claimed links to the migrant crisis, and the Syrian civil war. Those link will be claimed, but are nigh on impossible to prove on the blanket manner being attempted here. Sport and politics (talk) 12:41, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely agreed. WP:5. We report on verifiable events published in multiple reliable sources, and, in the case of terrorist attacks, we should be relying more on official sources, preferably originating in the country of an attack. (And the reason for this is that some elected officials in some states are pursuing their own agenda, claiming attacks in other countries are terrorist in nature when the investigators where the attacks have taken place haven't even stated that, and describing areas of cities or indeed entire cities as "no-go areas" when they're not. No original research, no synthesis, and no passing off opinion pieces as "proof" of a position, which would be in breach of WP:NPOV. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:16, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment - once again, Islamist terrorism is what should be discussed. Describing ISIS and lone-wolf terrorist attacks as Islamic terrorism is akin to decribing IRA terrorist attacks as "Christian terrorism" - i.e., competely inaccurate. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:09, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support inclusion of Syria spillover - the connections between attacks by Muslims in Europe and Syria has been pointed out by several RSes and is easily ascertained by any student of the subject - both in terms of on-line influence from the Islamic State and attacks by "returning" militants from Syria (e.g. November 2015 Paris attacks in which all the attackers had fought in Syria).Icewhiz (talk) 15:58, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - WP:OR and WP:SYNTH may not concern the regular inclusionists but for most wikipedians it is something that needs to be removed and avoided.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:00, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

PS - Please stop reinserting controversial material when clearly there is no consensus for such an edit. Consensus does not merely exist when it works for the specific side you support in a discussion.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:05, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose for now That there is some linkage to Syria is pretty sure but present text is crude. If certain events are Syria linked that should be said proportionately in relation to those specific events, and this is definitely not the most important or only point to make. Pincrete (talk) 19:17, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Is there a connection between this and Israeli occupation of Palestine?

Banned WP:Sockpuppet
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I wonder is any of the terrorism in Europe not only related to ISIL or Al-Qaeda but stemming from the European support of Israel and its occupation of the Palestinian territories? I wonder if any Islamist groups like AQ called for the elimination of the Israeli state completely. Is this even correct or no? Wrestlingring (talk) 16:06, 17 November 2017 (UTC) We don't really go into ANY of the causes at present, certainly not 'deep' causes, which I think is probably the right approach. If attackers state explicitly that their motives are linked to this or that conflict, we include and link to the appropriate conflict article. This article is mainly an 'overview', with more details elsewhere. European countries relations with Israel on the whole, (compared to US), are much less unconditionally supportive of Israel politically or militarily. Pincrete (talk) 17:12, 17 November 2017 (UTC)