While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Wikipedia.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList
Editors who violate any listed restrictions may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.
An editor must be aware before they can be sanctioned.
With respect to any reverting restrictions:
Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion.
Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as clear vandalism.
Clear vandalism of any origin may be reverted without restriction.
Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors that are not vandalism are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance.
If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!
Map needed
It is requested that a map or maps be included in this article to improve its quality. Wikipedians in Europe may be able to help!
Current/recent consensuses:
Only add terrorist attacks described as such by official sources (link)
This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.
Making this list but shall leave it to someone else to edit, as each time I add to the list, it gets removed, so I won't waste my time. So here as follows:
The Oslo shooting appears to have been confirmed as 'Islamist' by Oslo police. The Zürich incident appears to be an antisemetic hate crime, but with almost no official endorsement of it being either Islamist nor terrorism.Pincrete (talk) 06:36, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 July 2024
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: not moved. Consensus was found to not move, largely based on the argument that the current title is the common name.
Other takeaways from this discussion: Some editors believe the article may benefit from a change of scope, and that it may be relying too heavily on Europol as a source. Some editors have also suggested the title, or a variant of "Islamist terrorism in Europe", which may be an option to discuss in a later RM, but did not get enough traction here to justify a move. (closed by non-admin page mover) ASUKITE15:32, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Islamic terrorism in Europe → Jihadist terrorism in Europe – The current page title is at odds and inconsistent with the page contents. The first paragraph begins by outlining the topic as terrorism perpetrated by jihadist groups and individuals, which Europol has defined since 2015 as "jihadist terrorism". The definition section then explains the meaning of "jihadism" and the page features the "Jihadism" series template. If the topic is defined in this way by the principal body monitoring this activity, as well as in the definition section and other parts of the page, "jihadist terrorism" would seem to be the correct terminology for the topic. It is also more specific and precise than "Islamist terrorism", of which "jihadist terrorism" is a subset. "Islamic terrorism" is a generally poor term that is essentially shorthand for "Islamic extremist terrorism", but here the far better and more specific term to use is "jihadist terrorism" - hence the usage by Europol and here for practically every entry throughout this list. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:38, 25 August 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.FOARP (talk) 14:19, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The change by Europol is relatively recent. 'Islamic terrorism' was, and may remain the WP:COMMONNAME for what, is actually more correctly termed 'Islamist terrorism'. I wonder how recognisable 'Jihadist terrorism' is as a term.Pincrete (talk) 17:20, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So Europol is basically the principal source for this entire list, and they have been using this term for a decade. I wouldn't consider that a recent change, but a fairly established one. Seems like WP:AGEMATTERS territory. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:39, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Europol has used the term since 2016 (ie the report of events in 2015, published in 2016). But that is academic, the article is about the phenomenon, not the terminology used to describe it by a single source. Pincrete (talk) 09:09, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - No valid reason to uproot the entire article. Europol is not the sole arbiter of what Wikipedia titles its articles, and jihad is mentioned frequently in the article because it is a key concept behind many of the motivations for these attacks, but need not be the only one which motivates terrorist acts in the name of Islam. "Islamic terrorism" fits better because it is a more generalized term. More importantly though, this nomination has not adequately demonstrated that the WP:COMMONNAME for what's being described in the article is "Jihadist terrorism". Glass Snow (talk) 18:38, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Europol is the main source for the list, i.e.: the source that ties the entire list together and gives it WP:STANDALONE notability, so the basis on which this source categorises the information is somewhat important. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:41, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unconvinced. While this article features a large list of events, it is more than a simple list. It discusses several other aspects of the topic beyond just enumerating Islamic terrorist acts. Moreover, there is an important distinction between Europol being cited heavily as a record of events for a list in the article, and how the article is titled. Your sole source for this change is Europol, which does not adequately demonstrate WP:COMMONNAME. Glass Snow (talk) 18:56, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is not significantly more to this list (which is categorised as a list) than the list. I am not speaking to the common name guideline, but to the accurate descriptive title for this list, which is a list of jihadist terrorist attacks in Europe as defined by Europol. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:28, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm similarly unconvinced by your semantic argument, which essentially boils down to: "the title ought to be changed because Europol changed its terminology". "Islamic terrorism" is the more generalized, applicable term. Glass Snow (talk) 19:45, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth noting that "Islamic terrorism" is not the hands down WP:COMMONNAME for the broad topic, even setting aside the page-specific content considerations here. It instead has ample competition from the more apt "Islamist" and "jihadist" terminologies. So the question remains, especially given the specific sourcing here: why the current title? Iskandar323 (talk) 19:59, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I never claimed that "Islamic terrorism" was the common name. I simply said that you did not demonstrate that "Jihadist terrorism" is the common name for these phenomena. This isn't a debate about the current title, this is you attempting to change that title to a new one. If there is truly "ample competition" then I am in favor of used the more generalized term and maintaining the status quo, as opposed to changing the title with Europol as a singular source, as if they are the sole authority on the matter. Glass Snow (talk) 20:12, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was responding to your introduction of talk of common names, which only makes sense if you think the discussion is about common names. Many titles are merely descriptive, and what they describe depends on the content. Have you read over the list and appreciated how dependent it is on Europol as the anchor source? Iskandar323 (talk) 20:25, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have read the list. If it is largely dependent on a single source, then why not remedy that by adding more, instead of trying to potentially change the scope of the article? On the matter of scope, one could even question if there is a truly meaningful distinction between "Islamic" and "Islamist" terrorist acts in practical terms, and whether it is worth changing the title of the article if it is describing essentially the same thing. I think a separate discussion regarding article scope would be best before any move is suggested. Glass Snow (talk) 20:43, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The scope is defined by the sources, not vice versa. If you would like to add other sources, that is your perogative. But the current scope is clear (based on Europol's jihadist terrorism stats), and the list should be renamed as such. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:56, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Circling back to my original point, there are hundreds of citations in the article and they are not all Europol. Europol does not define what is or isn't the scope of this article. In fact, many of the citations in the list itself are from news orgs that have no official connection to Europol. The scope of this article is not: "Jihadist incidents according to Europol". You seem to be treating the entirety of the article as if it were the "Arrests for suspicion of jihadist-related terrorist offences..." bar graph, which is based on Europol statistics. I also reaffirm the pointlessness of such a move, as "Islamist" and "Jihadist" acts are still Islamic in nature. If this move was completed then there would also be impetus for a new "Islamic terrorism in Europe" page, which would have a list of events that would be largely the same, if not identical. Glass Snow (talk) 21:32, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Read WP:STANDALONE. What gives lists notability is that sources discuss the listed items as a group. Here it is the Europol source that provides that function. This isn't a trivial point. Re: terms, jihadism is an extremist ideology, and Islamism is just political Islam. None of these terms are quite the same. And many jihadist groups have been specifically denounced by global Muslim bodies as un-Islamic, so I disagree with your statements there. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:23, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
many jihadist groups have been specifically denounced by global Muslim bodies as un-Islamic. Of course, similarly 'Jihadism' has little to do with the original - honourable, religious - meaning of Jihad.But unless a term is self-evidently and inherently offensive, we use the common name to describe any phenomenon. As said before, there is nothing intrinsically 'Irish' about various forms of 'Irish terrorism', but so what?
The common factor in this list is not Europol, but that senior police/judicial or relevant govt figures have characterised the event as Islamic/ist terrorism, or a close synonym, such as the more recent 'Jihadist'. It is pure accident that Europol is the reporting body in a large number of cases, especially the less notable ones. Pincrete (talk) 09:30, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Irish terrorism" isn't a page though, is it? And Islamic and Islamist also aren't synonyms. One is inherently inaccurate; the other still imprecise, but not actively inaccurate. And Europol never used "Islamic terrorism", so if we're picking another Europol option it should really be "Islamist terrorism". The term "Islamist" is also, incidentally, used more frequently on page than "Islamic", when you minus "Islamic State", "Islamic phrase", "Islamic prophet", etc., as well as "Islamic extremism", i.e. all the other compound phrases. So the term "Islamist" is mentioned significantly more than "Islamic" on the page. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:13, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Irish terrorism" isn't a page though, is it? No of course not, nor is there a single phenomon called "Irish terrorism". There is Irish Republican terrorism and Loyalist terrorism, - and to some, British State terrorism. There is nothing intrinsically "Irish", "British", "Republican", nor "Loyalist" about any of them, but we use COMMONNAME, hopeful that readers are able to recognise that the word 'terrorism' is the key word, not the 'flavour' of it and that not all Irish, nor all British, nor all Republicans nor Loyalists make a habit of blowing up their fellow humans!
This page is about the phenomenon, not Europol (or any other single source's) use of terms to describe it. Islamic and Islamist of course aren't synonyms in isolation, but could you explain to me the difference between "Islamic terrorism" and "Islamist terrorism" (or for that matter "Jihadist terrorism")? When I say "explain the difference", I mean explain the difference in the phenomena, not the semantic difference or origins of the terms.
I was the first person in this discussion to point out that "Islamist terrorism" is probably slightly more accurate, "Islamic terrorism" less specific, but substantially more common and "Jihadist terrorism" is based on a neologism, which is possibly slightly more neutral, but very substantially less used. None of these are terms used by 'adherents' themselves. All are imprecise to a greater or lesser extent (especially when applied to 'lone wolves', whose motivations are often confused or difficult to assess).
I'm sorry, but the core of your argument seems to be that a more "correct" term should be favoured over the COMMONNAME for the phenomenon. Pincrete (talk) 11:14, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just to clarify, almost this entire list is based on Europol as an anchor source, with many of its entries referenced solely to Europol. In other words, as noted above, the WP:STANDALONE notability of this list is based almost entirely on Europol research. This makes the terminology that Europol uses to define the topic particularly pertinent, and if Wikipedia is not going to use Europol's terminology, despite basing a list off of its research, the question is why not? (not why yes). Iskandar323 (talk) 18:49, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In order that minor, and 'speculative' incidents were not included, which was a problem for many years, some years ago a consensus was reached that inclusion criteria included that a senior figure of the affected country's police, judiciary or govt should state explicitly that the incident was Islamist terrorism (or a synonym), or that Europol listed it explicitly as such. This is the reason for widespread use of Europol reports. Worth noting that Europol merely collates info which it receives from European police/judiciary, it does no investigating itself.
On the whole, Europol is used to verify that the incident is classified as 'IsTer', but other sources are used to summarise the event itself. Pincrete (talk) 19:03, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Though many events appear to cite solely Europol, which, incidentally, has presumably changed its terminology for good reason, not on a whim. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:32, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's definitely worth noting that Europol has always been more precise than the page title here, using, variously, "Islamist terrorism", "religiously inspired terrorism" and now "jihadist terrorism, but never "Islamic terrorism" – in the context, this makes the current title choice rather inexplicable. It should have presumably been "Islamist terrorism" from the start, based on the sourcing. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:38, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's definitely worth noting that Europol has always been more precise than the page title here. Errr on what planet is "religiously inspired terrorism" precise? Is Islam the only religion? Everything from fire-bombing of a Black church in Atlanta US to blowing up the King David Hotel could loosely be covered by the term, as could everything to do with the Irish 'Troubles'.
Islamic terrorism certainly WAS the WP:COMMONNAME when this article went through a major clean-up, as I recall around 6 or 7 years ago. It is only since then that Europol has been used at all as a source and it is primarily to validate that govt/judicial authorities (as opposed to press speculation) have concluded that the incident is IsTer/JihTer. Of the three terms, my impression is that 'Jihadist terrorism' is the least common.
jihadism is an extremist ideology, and Islamism is just political Islam. Err actually 'jihad' and 'Islam' are both inherently innocent mainstream religious terms which fundamentally alter when 'ism' is added and/or they are followed by 'terrorism'. But is there anything odd about that? Irish Republicanism (or Unionism for that matter) are legitimate, widely held beliefs, until people start killing others indiscriminately to achieve their goals. Pincrete (talk) 05:30, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, maybe not the middle one, but that other two. Not sure what your point on the matter is, the 'isms' have fundamentally different meanings regardless, and we're discussing the isms here, not the base words. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This suggestion, while not necessarily a bad one, would be a rather cosmetic fix to a much more serious underlying problem. We have spent many years trying to retroactively fit a suitable scope to an article that was created by editors surmising, or perhaps more accurately eyeballing, what the topic should be—rather than getting it from a serious survey of the relevant literature. The article should not exist in its current form, for it does not comport with the sources in its delineation of the scope. In particular, although much of the article relies on Europol as correctly noted above, it does not match the scope used by Europol as the article includes countries such as Turkey and Russia. There have been numerous attempts to resolve this issue, though thus far without success. Methinks it would be better to start by fixing the scope, and discuss what the most apt title would be based on the outcome of that. TompaDompa (talk) 19:54, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the longer I look at this article, the broader the issues appear to be – not least, is it attempting to be a list or an article? If it's a list (as per it's classification), it should outline it's criteria, and if this is Europol inclusion, it should use the Europol terminology. If it is a broader article, it should be re-scoped as such, and the Europol-based lists should be split out. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:03, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree wholeheartedly with TD's comments about scope. Especially regarding Turkey and Russia, whose history, demography etc are completely different from 'Europol' countries. Pincrete (talk) 05:36, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because of the geographical definition of scope, the bizarre outcome is that an incident in Istanbul is included or excluded depending on which side of the Bosporus it happened in! In fact, with the exception of Russia (where recent incidents tend to relate directly to Russian history and policies), most of the incidents documented here happened in a smallish number of W. European countries with similar histories, culture, international policies etc. Pincrete (talk) 07:44, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support because current title and terminology seems to conflate Islamic vs. Islamist vs. Islamic state. I also support Islamist terrorism in Europe per Pincrete. Islamist terrorism is also a common name [1][2][3][4][5] used in many sources. Some of those sources also differentiate between Muslims who follow Islam which is not the same thing as Islamists. Wafflefrites (talk) 19:59, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind the "Islamist terrorism" option as a second choice. That is at least the old Europol definition. Islamism is just political Islam, so it's a tad vague to use here when talking specifically about jihadist terrorism, but "terrorism" clearly implies extremism. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:42, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose having given the matter some thought, the only valid reason for a name-change would be WP:COMMONNAME IMO, despite Europol (unsurprisingly) having adopted a (slightly) more neutral term and WP having slightly increased use of 'Jih Ter'. My initial surmisal that "Islamic terrorism" is the most used term, "Islamist terrorism" the second most used and "Jihadist terrorism" a very distant third was confirmed. The first actually has more usage than the other two combined. I think it would be useful to put the other two terms as alternative names for (effectively) the same phenomenon, but a rename would obfuscate rather than inform IMO. Discussion on a more rational scope than (geographical) Europe would also be a benefit.Pincrete (talk) 08:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose given that it is not the common name. Europol being a commonly used source does not mean it is what gives this list notability. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:09, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In a nutshell, "Islamist terrorism in Europe" is a preferable title, as it distinguishes the fringe political ideology of Islamism, which advocates for a particular interpretation of Islam in governance, from the broader religion of Islam. Given Europol's consistent use of terms like "Islamist terrorism" and "religiously inspired terrorism," the current title "Islamic terrorism" is indeed problematic. It conflates Islam with the political ideology of Islamism, which is distinct. As noted by other editors, "Islamist terrorism" is not only more accurate but is also a common term in many reliable sources, ensuring both precision and clarity in the title. StarkReport (talk) 17:28, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question: is "Islamist terrorism" the exact same thing as "Islamic terrorism"? Since Islamism is a subset of Islam (i.e all Islamists are Muslims, but not all Muslims are Islamists), it would appear that "Islamist terrorism" would be narrower in scope than "Islamic terrorism". If so, changing the title would also imply narrowing of scope.VR(Please ping on reply)01:48, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Islamist is just more precise. All terrorism of this genre is perpetrated in the name of political Islam. Terrorism is general has inherently political goals, and since the term "Islamist" exists, it is more accurate – as evidenced by its wider usage by the actual sources on the page. Iskandar323 (talk) 03:45, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain why you're proposing "Jihadist terrorism in Europe" and not "Jihadism in Europe"? What exactly is the definition of jihadism and is there a way to practice it that is not deemed terrorist by European governments? VR(Please ping on reply)04:08, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That was only per Europol, which is the entire basis of this list, the definitions section, most of the lead and various other stats in the list. Jihadism is just the ideological framing, but yes, any jihadist violence that is domestic and against military targets would not constitute terrorism. E.g. Afghan resistance against the Soviets in the 1990s. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:07, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That was only per Europol, which is the entire basis of this list it is simply not the case that Europol is the basis of the list. Most of the more serious incidents were in the list long before Europol listed them (which happens approx 12 months after the event). The 'terrorist' designations were initially attributed to PMs, Justice ministers and/or senior police. An editor has retrospectively attributed all the 'designations' to Europol, which I don't object to, but the list is simply not based on Europol, which anyway gets its data from individual states.
is Islamist terrorism" the exact same thing as "Islamic terrorism"? effectively yes. "Islamic" tends to have been an earlier and more commonly used term, 'Islamist' more precise and more recent. Terrorism is general has inherently political goals, particularly when one is speaking about 'lone wolves', it is hard to see any specific goals, political or otherwise. Anger and disaffection with the modern secular world, combined with outrage at Western 'meddling' in the Muslim world are often the most prominent factors. Pincrete (talk) 06:13, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There appears to be a contradiction. How can terrorism without "any specific goals, political or otherwise" be considered Islamist? VR(Please ping on reply)06:15, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority I believe of recent incidents in Europe have been 'lone wolves', individuals claiming to be inspired by IS or Islamist groups, but acting on their own initiative. Often however it is difficult to disentangle confused personal disaffection or similar motivating factors from any external/political motivation. Often what they are angry about is more apparent than any goal they might have. But from WP's point of view, we call the event Islamic/Islamist terrorism because the 'host' govt and/or Europol do, rather than from any logical consistency. Pincrete (talk) 07:00, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that sources don't use the term 'Muslim terrorism' and it would be even less accurate/precise than 'Islamic', and more open to WP:OR(not all terrorist acts committed by Muslims are necessarily 'Islamic terrorism' or 'Islamist terrorism', which in practice are synonymous and which in use exclude acts related mainly to specific territorial struggles - such as Bosnia or Palestine, or 'sectarian' acts such as Sunni/Shia conflicts. Pincrete (talk) 11:33, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Europol defines jihadism as "The TE-SAT uses a narrow definition of jihadism. Jihadism is defined as a violent sub-current of salafism, a revivalist Sunni Muslim movement that rejects democracy and elected parliaments, arguing that human legislation is at variance with God’s status as the sole lawgiver." So this would narrow the scope.
If this article is (or at least should be) about terrorism by "a violent sub-current of salafism", then I would strongly support the move. Article titles should accurately match their contents. But we would need consensus that this article does not/should not include (alleged) terrorism by, for example, Shia groups.VR(Please ping on reply)18:43, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion, regardless of the outcome of this move request, I suggest "Islamist terrorism" and "Jihadist terrorism" should be added to the intro as alternative names. The use of both terms has obviously increased since the article was created in 2016, when under a different title, it covered only the attacks in Europe from 2014 to 2016.Pincrete (talk) 06:51, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. On reading the article itself, it does seem to deal disproportionately with Jihadist terrorism, mostly linked to ISIS and al-Qaeda, and that's even the basis for the definition section. I do think the lists form the backbone of the article, and occupy a lot of space and focus. Lewisguile (talk) 15:07, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
.svg){kind=small}
