Talk:Islamic terrorism in Europe/Archive 2

Inclusion of incidents, which are not terrorism
There is inclusion on this list of items, which are not terrorism. These items, are just crimes, or incidents, with no actual proven link to terrorism. Some of the items listed are also not notable and are just news reporting of events. This fails a number of wikipedia standards on synthesis of information, original research, not being a news site, being reliable and verified in terms of information sourcing ad accuracy, and having a neutral point of view. This article and wikipedia is not a mass repository of events, and inclusion must meet Wikipedia standards, listing all and sundry must be avoided. Sport and politics (talk) 08:54, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * As long as you just list policies and present no examples Sport and politics, it could just be a pointless claim. Alexpl (talk) 09:42, 4 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia works by showing that inclusion is warranted, and not that inclusion is not warranted. The removed events are examples of the issues which are contained in the above. One Imam being stabbed is not terrorism, events with the description of 'alleged' links to terrorism, and internal prison goings on, are not terrorist events. Domestic situations between neighbours, are also not terrorism. Attacks by individuals who are mentally ill are not terrorism, attacks by individuals on police are also not terrorism, as these could very easily be a dislike of the police, and the same goes for the military. There needs to be a strong evidence base for inclusion or it is part of the multitude of problems listed above. Sport and politics (talk) 14:46, 4 June 2017 (UTC)


 * If that is the reason, you should be active on List of terrorist incidents in June 2017 and all of its predecessors. Anyway, if there are cases in this list, which are not labeled "terrorism" by reliable external sources, feel free to remove them. But your personal interpretation alone, of what "terrorism" is, is not enough to do so No original research. Alexpl (talk) 19:26, 4 June 2017 (UTC)


 * That is the wrong way round, it must have sources for inclusion which are verifiable and reliable. The events removed did not contain this kind of reliable third part sourcing. The burden on inclusion is that information must be reliably and independently sourced from a third party, convey the information being put forward, not the other way round. Also stating what another user should be doing is missing the point on this page. This page is not meeting the standards and the information on this page is what is being challenged.Sport and politics (talk) 19:39, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Here are some examples of the serious issues:

I shall go through by date in order why the incidents all fail inclusion on Wikipedia. The majority fail on WP:NOTNEWS
 * 1) 19 April 2015 - mere allegation of an unsuccessful incident, no link to terrorism shown, and there was no success in the event, so that is not terrorism, trying and failing does not count simple failing under not news, and unverified.
 * 2) I27 April 2015 slamist event in a country with inter-ethnic conflict does not equate to terrorism, also fails synthesis as the source does not confirm terrorism, one opinion of an official is not a confirmation. Multiple sources are required.
 * 3) 17 September 2015 Simply being a terrorist does not make everything done by the individual terrorism, an attack on a police officer, does not instantly make the incident terrorism, independent, verifiable, third party sources must state it is. Phrasing such as "suggested a possible connection" is not a confirmation that the incident is a terrorist incident.
 * 4) 18–19 November 2015	"Phrasing in sources which is "too early to say whether the attack was an act of terrorism or simply murder." do not confirm that an attack is terrorism, sources confirming the incident as terrorism, must be provided. claiming it is without sources is Synthesis.
 * 5) 1 January 2016 Source explicitly denies links to terrorism.
 * 6) 7 January 2016 Article on subject explicitly denies links to terrorist cells and terrorism.
 * 7) 11 January 2016, sources do not confirm self-aggrandising claims of the assailant. self-proclamation of being a terrorist does not make one a terrorist, or incident they do terrorism. Terrorist links and the act being actual terrorism, must be independently verified by reliable third party sources.
 * 8) 26 February 2016 Sources do not confirm the event was terrorism, only "suspected" and "may have been" and "under suspicion" none of which is a confirmation, and fails Not News.
 * 9) 27 May 2016 no sourcing whatsoever, and has been tagged as such.
 * 10) 19 August 2016 simply shouting slogans does not make terrorism, this must be shown by multiple reliable third party sources, this is again just news.
 * 11) 30 August 2016 Source does not confirm terrorism, and only relies on Twitter
 * 12) 4 September 2016, only user comments mention terrorism, simply taking place in a prison anti-radicalisation unit does not make an incident terrorism, this is not a news site and synthesis is not allowed
 * 13) 9 September 2016 Sources do not mention terrorism, and the required sources must be provided.
 * 14) 27 September 2016 Sources do not mention terrorism, and the required sources must be provided.
 * 15) 16 October 2016 description actively dissuades from the event being a terrorist event.
 * 16) 31 October 2016 Terrorism not confirmed, and the description actively states mental illness as a cause.


 * Some of these have poor sourcing. Just mark them. If sourcing is not improved in the next weeks we can talk about deleting them. Arcadius Romanus (talk) 01:14, 5 June 2017 (UTC)


 * its the other way round, poorly sourced material and material without sourcing should be removed from Wikipeida, and only replaced when proper accurate sourcing can be found verifying the information being forwarded. Sport and politics (talk) 07:38, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Take a look on my suggestion. ThePagesWriter (talk) 14:09, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree, we can (and are only allowed) to include incidents that RS call Islamic terror (or insurgency or whatever), we cannot decide that just because the Mr Winston Bin'dogo commits a crime it is part of some insurrection.Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

This is listed as a terrorist plot:

''A man carrying a Quran and two handguns concealed in a bag, and a female accomplice were arrested near Disneyland Paris. ''

The only ref is a New York paper (one would expect some EU coverage of an event in France), the paper specifically says "No other details, including the pair's possible motive, were immediately available", no indication of prosecution or later release by police, 'concealed' isn't even in the source and of course no mention of terrorism. I've removed dozens of terrible speculative entries like this and simply got bored with doing so.Pincrete (talk) 12:19, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

These events have now been up here a while and nothing verifiable has been added, it is time to take these events out, it has not been shown these events are terrorism. Sport and politics (talk) 10:07, 11 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't understand how saying "Allah akbar" does not make the attack related to Islamic terrorism. Obviously the attacker intended for it to be an Islamic attack, what other source for motivation can there be other than the statements of the attacker? A BBC article confirming it? El cid, el campeador (talk) 20:55, 12 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Not every person shouting when committing a crime is an act of terrorism, and saying so misses the point of what is and is not terrorism. For Wikipedia this needs to be through the use of verified and reliable sources supporting that claim. Sport and politics (talk) 23:19, 12 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Continually citing to this discussion as if it proves any kind of consensus does not make sense. I see maybe one person that agrees with you (Pincrete). There are people who disagree, but no one who strongly supports taking out swathes of information. It is sourced by reliable news outlets, which is what much of WP is sourced by. If you want to get consensus start an RfC or something-- but don't keep deleting SOURCED content that multiple editors have contributed. You are blanking sourced content repeatedly and are being reverted by different editors. So please, try to go through the proper channels. We can't censor wikipedia because you think news outlets are not reliable sources. El cid, el campeador (talk) 15:50, 13 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Please contribute to reach a consensus on how to edit, so far policy has been raised which are the pillars of wikipedia, including verifiability of the information. It is not a blanket do not include anything, it is an only include that which meets the standards on Wikipedia. Single sources do not amount to verifiable or reliable. Sources must reflect the information being out forward and asserted and in this instance it has been very clearly shown that this is not the case. Sport and politics (talk) 15:56, 13 June 2017 (UTC)


 * But a reliable news source IS a reliable source according to WP. On WP we rely on news sources for information on items like terrorist attacks. There are not books on these attacks just yet. It is not clearly shown. The information is sourced and to take out a LARGE amount of SOURCED information, you should reach a consensus. At the very least, you NEED to reach a consensus when it becomes clear that multiple editors take issue with you taking out sourced material multiple times, lest it becomes an edit war. The information IS sourced. If there is a reliable source linking an attack to Islamic terrorism, it should be included on this list. The standards are not that high. This is not BLP. El cid, el campeador (talk) 16:21, 13 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The content of the sources needs to back up what is being claimed, if the content does not reflect what is being claimed or is only speculative, then it is not verifying the claims being made. It can be from a reliable outlet in and of itself, but it is may not verifying the claim which is being made. Having a source which has a reliable creator does not make the source reliable, The BBC is a reliable source, but if an article from the BBC is about football, but is being use to try to verify a claim of terrorism, that is not a verifiable source, and the claim is not reliable or verified, and must be removed, as the source is meaningless and worthless. Sport and politics (talk) 16:44, 13 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Your personal vendetta against this article has one why to far Sport and politics. For example you removed the 26 Feb 2016 Hannover stabbing, despite multiple sources calling it an Islamic motivated terror attack which was even ordered by ISIL. Or how is the Jewish Museum of Belgium shooting not an Islamic terror attack? The article even lists ISIL as perpetrator. Why did remove all entries before reaching consensus here? I admit that the list contained a handful of ordinary crimes. But this is no reason to remove most of the entries that are valid terror attacks. --Arcadius Romanus (talk) 23:41, 13 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Calm down and relax, this is not the place to hurl accusations of vendettas, and other such wild and unfounded emotive claims which are ad homenim. Remain civil. Also please be aware that multiple editors have removed different events from this article. If there is a belief that incidents should be included make an edit request and provide sources, which from what is being said for the events listed in the comments previous to this, should not prove challenging. Always remember to assume good faith. Sport and politics (talk) 08:55, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Inclusion of events
At the beginning Sport and politics raised the valid issue that some of the entries in list are not related to terror. Sport and politics created a list with poorly sourced or non-terror entries. Some of these are valid removal suggestions, some aren't. She also started a discussion about the scope of this article. Today she began removing almost all of the entries despite that no consensus had been reached and completely ignored his original list. Just a few of the most confirmed Islamic terror attacks that were removed: --Arcadius Romanus (talk) 00:14, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Jewish Museum of Belgium shooting
 * 2017 Istanbul nightclub shooting -> Seriously?
 * 2017 Westminster attack
 * 2016 Hanover stabbing
 * March 2016 Istanbul bombing
 * Sikh bombing
 * 2016 Magnanville stabbing
 * 2016 stabbing of Charleroi police officers
 * It appears there is an editing dispute and significant edit warring occuring, but I think its important to remember what is and isn't vandalism and edit warring isn't. That being said it still needs to stop, everyone involved in the dispute should probably breathe and disengage if only for a short while to make the discussion easier. Also as to those incidents which were removed, they were re-added by an IP user with the necessary citations and should not have been deleted again by Sports and Politics. - SantiLak  (talk) 01:02, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

The citations have clearly not been read, please see the above previous discussion which clearly laid out all of the errors in the citations, simply having a citation does not equal verification of the information being put forward the information must actually reflect the sources which are being cited. None of the information which was re-added by the I.P. did this and as such was unverified, and the sources were not meeting the criteria as good sources. I strongly invite an actual reading of the courses and a reading of the previous discussion on this topic. There is also some information which is included in this article which has no source at all. I suggest reading the sources before simply stating 'there are sources and X is in the wrong,' I would also like to point out this is not the place to make person direct attacks on the Good faith editing of another user. I have a talk page talk on there. This is highly inappropriate. Sport and politics (talk) 09:00, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm broadly with Arcadius Romanus here, whilst I agree with most of the comments by Sport and politics in the list further up the page, and agree with her and others that say the general quality and use of sources in this list is appalling, IRO these cases, I cannot see reasons for removal. Pincrete (talk) 15:47, 14 June 2017 (UTC) .... ps I can't access 'Sikh bombing', so that may be an exception. Pincrete (talk) 16:25, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Sport and politics: That would have been probably more efficient to add the sources rather than removing those events that will 80% be re-added to the list... Wykx  (talk) 21:54, 14 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I am not here to go phishing for sources, the burden is on the original added to ensure it is in compliance, and not to dump wild information on the page and go "Hey, other people, do what I was supposed to do in the first place". Stop demanding it be done of the editors challenging the inclusion of events Sport and politics (talk) 22:16, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 1. Vandalism was the wrong word. I admit that.
 * 2. You are right it is not your job to look for sources.
 * 3. It our all job. So if you find questionable sourced entries, please mark them (as you did) or post them here if there is a reason for discussion. Besides that you didn't wait long enough to give people a chance to respond to the entries up for discussion you deleted much more entries than you listed here. There was no chance improving the sourcing or discussing them. That is what me personal irritates the most. None of the examples I listed here were listed in your original list of 17 questionable entries. Except the Safia S. stabbing, which you removed despite posting a valid source that confirms the ISIL connection (she got convicted for supporting a terror group (ISIL)). Which brings me to the next point. It seems that you don't if someone improves a source.
 * 4. You always claim that the removal was agreed to in the discussion, where? Please point to the discussion. There is a discussion about your list, but it was mostly you, El cid, el campeado, Alexpl and I. Not one person agreed with you removing even just these 17. The discussion about the scope of the article should be followed. --Arcadius Romanus (talk) 20:48, 15 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Its easier to just get on with editing and constructive discussion, as opposed to commenting on contributors. If there is a wish to talk to me personally please do so on my talk page. Please also remember this is not voting, and what the five pillars of Wikiepdia are.


 * Getting back to the discussion at hand, I welcome seeing the sources proving the information being asserted, please also feel free to make an edit request to have these events re-inserted if you believe they fulfill the policies and guidelines for inclusion on Wikiepdia. Sport and politics (talk) 21:38, 15 June 2017 (UTC)


 * We would certainly never ask you to phish anyone. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador  ᐁT₳LKᐃ  13:38, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * @El cid, el campeado anything constructive to add to the discussion? or just more terseness and hollowness? Sport and politics (talk) 16:10, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No need for personal insults. Just want to assure this article is not blanked again. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador  ᐁT₳LKᐃ  16:15, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Clean start discussion on specific events
The events in question are as follows:
 * Jewish Museum of Belgium shooting
 * 2017 Istanbul nightclub shooting
 * 2017 Westminster attack
 * 2016 Hanover stabbing
 * March 2016 Istanbul bombing
 * Sikh bombing
 * 2016 Magnanville stabbing
 * 2016 stabbing of Charleroi police officers

With respect of the Sikh event, the article nowhere in the main body of the text says it is terrorism, it only says 'was thought to be religiously motivated', that does not confirm that the event is terrorism, saying it is so does not reflect the source. Sport and politics (talk) 21:50, 15 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Agree about Sikh bombing, this is much more a 'hate crime', but neither term is used in source.Pincrete (talk) 06:39, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Agree the sourcing isn't good. There are some German sources that mention that according to the police the perpetrators were part of a jihadi network and that call it a terror attack or salafi attack. Source 1, Source 2, Source 3. --Arcadius Romanus (talk) 09:31, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

For those listed events, here are some sources: "Assasination attempt linked to a terrorist attempt" (« Tentative d'assassinat en lien avec une entreprise terroriste »); "In suspect's luggage, policemen have also found a video of 40 seconds including ISIS flag" ("Dans les bagages du suspect, les policiers ont aussi trouvé une vidéo d'une quarantaine de secondes, comportant le drapeau de l'Etat islamique") "ISIS claims Charleroi's attack" ("l'État islamique revendique l'attaque de Charleroi"); le premier ministre Charles Michel a indiqué qu'une enquête a été ouverte par la justice belge pour «tentative d'assassinat terroriste».); "The Prime minister Charles Michel has indicated an inquiry has been open by Belgian justice for "terroris assasination attempt". The Prime Minister has stated that "a certain number of elements have appeared immediately" to justify the type of this inquiry including the fact that the perpetrator had shoulted "Allah Akbar" ("le premier ministre Charles Michel a indiqué qu'une enquête a été ouverte par la justice belge pour «tentative d'assassinat terroriste». Le premier ministre a évoqué «qu'un certain nombre d'éléments sont apparus immédiatement» pour justifier le caractère de cette enquête dont le fait que l'assaillant avait crié «Allah akbar».")
 * Jewish Museum of Belgium shooting: http://www.lemonde.fr/europe/article/2014/06/01/tuerie-de-bruxelles-un-suspect-francais-arrete_4429835_3214.html
 * 2017 Istanbul nightclub shooting: http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/02/europe/turkey-nightclub-attack/
 * 2017 Westminster attack: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/last-message-left-by-westminster-attacker-khalid-masood-uncovered-by-security-agencies-a7706561.html and https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/23/westminster-attack-police-arrest-seven-people-in-raids-at-six-addresses
 * March 2016 Istanbul bombing: http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/Default.aspx?pageID=238&nID=96674&NewsCatID=509
 * 2016 Magnanville stabbing: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36530710
 * 2016 stabbing of Charleroi police officers: http://www.lefigaro.fr/international/2016/08/06/01003-20160806ARTFIG00130-belgique-deux-policieres-attaquees-a-l-arme-blanche-a-charleroi.php

Do you have comments on those ones before reinclusion? Wykx (talk) 10:10, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Please ensure that the sources which are not in english comply with policy on non-English sources and please also provide quotations from the relevant articles (English and non-English (with translations in to English)) which verify specifically the claims in the article, in order to avoid synthesis and any of the other sourcing issues previously mentioned in this talk page. Sport and politics (talk)
 * Added. Wykx  (talk) 11:54, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The article I know well is 'Westminster'. First of all I do not dispute for one second that 'Westminster' is almost certainly Islamic terrorism, both police and Th. May have so described it. However the 'Indy' source offered above does not mention the term at all or any synonym. We are supposed to conclude that a final message from Masood to an acquantaince in which Masood speaks of 'jihad' must mean that the act was terrorist, even though we know very well that 'jihad' means something very different to western journalists and readers. This kind of 'leap of logic' is the problem throughout the topic area IMO.


 * One thing that concerns me as much as the "is /isn't an event Islamic terrorism" question, is the lack of context in the list (and often in linked articles). If police are treating the incident as Islamic terrorism, we should say that, if ISIL claim responsibility but police doubt it, we should say it, if people are found guilty of terrorist offences ditto. At present there is a 'one size fits all approach' that seems more interested in projecting a super-heated PoV than actually supplying a balanced account of a complex situation in which some incidents (a relatively small number) are unquestionably ISIL terrorism and then a sliding scale in which it is difficult to see whether/to what extent other incidents are 'copy-cat', ultimately down to some incidents, such as those involving the long-term mentally ill, which are certainly, demonstrably NOT any kind of terrorism according to both RS and authorities.Pincrete (talk) 13:55, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I have added a Guardian link with a title 'Police unravel multiple aliases of Westminster terrorist Khalid Masood' which is clearly mentioning terrorism. Wykx  (talk) 14:06, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * One of the best and most common ways to make good lists on Wikipedia is to use lists made by secondary sources as references themselves. Examples of some such references are these articles by AFP, Deutsche Welle, + these . These lists should be a good starting point (although they're not exhaustive). User2534 (talk) 15:41, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 29 May 2017

 * 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. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. —Guanaco 12:21, 17 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Closing rationale: There is little chance of a consensus for a move. It'll have to stay where it is, because it's been stable at this title for quite some time. (WP:NOCON) With the article protected due to content disputes and a massive template for a lead section, there are a lot of things to productively discuss here. A page move at this time isn't one of them. —Guanaco 12:21, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present) → Islamist terrorism in Europe (2014–present) – I personally think this name is better because these attacks are made by Islamists. For example: List of Islamist terrorist attacks Beshogur (talk) 18:31, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with


 * Weak support - indeed the proposed name is better, though not the best possible.GreyShark (dibra) 05:58, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support as Islamist is a more accurate and meaningful description.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 06:16, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong Support per EvergreenFir, Islamist is a lot more accurate than Islamic. Should also be moved because the current title was opposed in an RfC but was then moved independently and without consensus by another user. - SantiLak  (talk) 23:19, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Very Strong Support Have a look at Wiktionary's own definitions of the two words. "Islamic" means pertaining to or deriving from the religion of Islam or its Muslim adherents. "Islamist" has many meanings, the most relevant here being that relating to fundamentalism in Islam. A Muslim who commits an act of terror may not be an Islamist, for example a Muslim who commits an act of terror to further a political goal unrelated to fundamentalist Islam, like secessionism or far left/right causes. Therefore an article about Islamic terror would actually be a catalogue of ALL acts of terror committed by Muslims or by anyone taking any inspiration from Islamic culture or Koranic scripture. Simply as a matter of definition and logic, the correct name for an article cataloguing terror attacks inspired by fundamentalist interpretations of Islam must be "Islamist". 80.42.65.252 (talk) 09:41, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - those who are carrying out the attacks call themselves Islamic, not Islamist. For instance it is the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, not the Islamist State of Iraq and the Levant. Similarly, in reference to their historical predecessors, we refer to the Muslim conquest of Persia, Muslim conquest of the Maghreb, Muslim conquest of Egypt, etc. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, who leads the organisation, has a BA in Islamic Studies from the Iraq University, so it is kind of artificial distinction. Claíomh Solais (talk) 22:39, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * What they call themselves shouldn't determine what the title is, what they actually specifically are is what should determine what the title is. They are Islamists and as such we should call the wave of terror that, it's not a political issue, it's an encyclopedic issue. Also as to your examples of those conquests, they were indeed Muslim conquests, but they were during the time of Abu Bakr, as in the 7th century, right when Islam was founded and was a cohesive group, not 1400 years later when it is what it is today. - SantiLak (talk) 23:51, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * To cite a similar example, North Korea officially calls itself the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea", a cynically false description. Conflating Islamic and Islamist on the grounds that a pariah Islamist group like ISIL uses the word "Islamic" in their official name makes no sense. Uncle Roy (talk) 09:39, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Depends how you define democracy; the DPRK's claims to representing the interests of the majority are far less cynical than Western oligarchies who market themselves as "democratic", while fielding candidates from two tightly controlled parties beholden to special interests. Just as we do not try to claim Franco's Spain and Petain's France were "not real Catholics", it is frankly farcical to claim that these people are not Islamic. Who knows best what is Islamic? Militant adherents to that very creed or bourgeois liberal observers haphazardly trying to manage the embarrassing fallout from such attacks? Claíomh Solais (talk) 21:17, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The argument is not that they are "not Islamic" or "not real Muslims", we're not here to discuss politics and we're not politicians, it's an argument over whether Islamist is more accurate than Islamic. Islamist, a subset of Islamic is more accurate because it is labeling the attackers as what they are, members, followers, or supporters of Islamist groups who were inspired or ordered by those groups to carry out attacks. Islamist is simply a more accurate term overall rather than Islamic which seems to be too broad. Specificity is important in an encyclopedia and we should care about it. Along with what I had to say about that, i'd just like to remind people that this is not a forum for your political beliefs and we should keep the discussion related to the topic at hand. - SantiLak  (talk) 23:17, 4 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose, changing the title would mean changing something that is not wrong. Islamism and Islamic Terrorism is basically the same. --Tscherpownik (talk) 03:27, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Very strong oppose Wikipedia is not the place for political correctness. You can change the title, but the essence will not change.--TonyaJaneMelbourne (talk) 08:27, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - This is nothing do with Political Correctness, this is about an accurate and neutral title. Islamist is accurate, Islamic is POV pushing. Sport and politics (talk) 08:56, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Using the common name of something is POV pushing? Please explain. El cid, el campeador (talk) 15:10, 12 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Strong support per User:Sport and politics. Until Wikipedia merges the Islamism and Islam articles on the grounds that they're "basically the same", we need to be consistent with article names. Uncle Roy (talk) 09:39, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong support per nom-there is a shade of difference here.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 10:13, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Sorry, I don't buy the proposition that the present title is PoV-pushing anymore than I would buy the proposition that readers think that 'Irish', (or 'Palestinian' or 'Basque' or 'right-wing') is synonymous with 'Irish terrorism'. Secondly 'Islamist' is not the term being used by most authorities and RS, even though it might be ideologically more precise. This list IMO has gigantic PoV problems, mostly to do with not having any clear criteria for inclusion (any incident which could possibly be terrorism according to a single poor source seems to make it here, based largely on subjective editorial criteria and with zero 'qualification' or attribution) but fixing the present title is 'window dressing' IMO. Pincrete (talk) 14:44, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Very Strong Opposition - If one's goal is to stay true to facts, truth, and veracity, then there can not exist a better term than - Islamic terrorism.
 * 1] What exactly are the intentions of the ones trying to gloss over the fact that Islamic terrorism is Islamic? Dubious. Any person with even a little regard for the truth, would consider it unfathomable to even think about labelling them - Islamist, and not Islamic.
 * 2] When the ones committing the attacks themselves call themselves Islamic, then what exactly gives us the authority to contradict them? And if we are to dispute them, we can do so only through the evidence in the doctrine, which if we try, we will all reach the conclusion that it is erroneous, unethical and not to mention, dishonest, to label them as - Islamist, and not Islamic
 * 3] To label them Islamist, is to force-create a separate category, in which to dump them, thereby distracting from the true nature of the issue, and thus is unscrupulous, wrong, and indeed, deceitful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.196.180.89 (talk) 14:58, 4 June 2017 (UTC)  — 112.196.180.89] (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Oppose All these are attacks are based on Islamic fundamentalism. Which has slowly becoming the main movement of Islam since the 70s. It is not the purpose of this article to define if or what is the difference between Islam and Islamism. Arcadius Romanus (talk) 17:19, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's essentially the same thing, and changing the one word wouldn't make any significant difference. Compared to other discussions about changing the name of an article I've seen. Dogman15  ( talk ) 20:51, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. Contra Dogman15, "Islamist" is not the same thing as "Islamic". Islamism is a specific political ideology, "Islamic" simply means "relating to Islam". The ideology may be inspired by the religion but that doesn't mean it's part of the religion. Calling it "Islamic terrorism" is as misleading as calling Right-wing terrorism "Christian terrorism" - those responsible might invoke their religion as justification but that doesn't make the terrorism part of the religion. Prioryman (talk) 07:37, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong support.  Per other comments - the accurate and correct description is Islamist - which describes an ideology with clear social/political goals - rather than Islamic, which denotes a religion.   The fact that they may claim to be following Islamic teaching is irrelevant, as the overwhelming majority of adherents of the religion take a different view.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:30, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - More accurate title. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 14:19, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - The suggested title is better and more accurate. Keivan.f  Talk 11:51, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong support - more accurate and neutral and per other comments. My Islamic friends and colleagues are as disgusted with the actions of Ismlamist terrorists as Irish republicans were with the actions of the self-proclaimed IRA in the 70s to the 90s. Edit to add: a move would also bring this article in line with, for example, List of Islamist terrorist attacks. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:09, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - for reasons already listed. Wykx  (talk) 20:57, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong support - I think Islamist is the better word than Islamic because Islamic means "of Islam". It is little bit obscure and it's not matching with context. 인천직전 (talk) 00:04, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose - It sounds awkward, and is definitely not the common name. The page is titled Christian terrorism, not anything else. Having Islamist Terrorism isn't going to cause people to somehow have more politically correct views on the subject. It is a difference without significance. Other than, of course, sounding more awkward and clouding the topic. At wikipedia we should print the facts we shouldn't worry about whether Islamic terrorism is potentially slightly offense. El cid, el campeador (talk) 15:04, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

 * I think Wave of Terror in Europe is more neutral than Islamic or Islamist terrorism in Europe --TonyaJaneMelbourne (talk) 09:32, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Wave of terror was one of the previous names of the article but consensus decided to move it to Terrorism in Europe (2014–present), yet without consensus and despite the discussion, other users proceeded to move it to Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present) as well as back to Wave of Terrorism before it was moved back to its current title. Islamist terrorism in Europe (2014–present) is a neutral as well as accurate description of the wave of terrorism while Islamic isn't and "Wave of Terror" appears to differ too much from general MoS when it comes to the naming of articles relating to events such as these. - SantiLak  (talk) 09:45, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * This article is specifically for the rise in islamic terror attacks in combination with the rise of ISIL. This is not a general list of violent attacks in europe. So the title clearly describes what it is about. Why choose a more "neutral" title if all attacks listed are related to Islamism? Arcadius Romanus (talk) 17:22, 4 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Previous rename discussions Pincrete (talk) 18:31, 4 June 2017 (UTC)


 * My belief behind changing the article title from Islamic to Islamist is that it is more accurate rather than broad. It isn't a political argument but rather an encyclopedic one. Despite some editors suggesting that it is political correctness or that because they identify as such and because that, we should identify them as Islamic or that we shouldn't differentiate between Islam and Islamism, it is necessary to make the distinction. The mass murderer in Norway claimed he was a Christian Crusader, that doesn't mean we should identify his attack as an act of a Christian crusade when it's clear that he was attacking in support of far-right politics. Because it was clear, editors identified it that way, and we should do the same. These terrorists are acting as Islamists in support of Islamist causes. They were Muslims and Islamism is a part of Islam and there's no question about that, but the point is that as Wikipedians we need to be as accurate as possible in our article titles. Islamist is the most accurate description and as such I believe it should be changed to that. - SantiLak  (talk) 20:08, 4 June 2017 (UTC)


 * A side comment, the idea that the term "Islamism" is any less problematic than "Islamic" is a red-herring. For instance, the perpetrators of this campaign; the Salafist Jihadists of ISIS and associated groups, are in Syria and Iraq also fighting against different shades of "Islamists" represented by Hezbollah and the champions of the Iranian Revolution. ISIS are also hostile to the Muslim Brotherhood. So if, as some are essentially claiming, the title should be changed from Islamic to Islamist to avoid hurt-feeling, then what about the hurt-feelings of Islamists who are opposed to/at war with ISIS and other Salafists elsewhere in the world? Claíomh Solais (talk) 21:39, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * As we seem to have to say again and again, it isn't about political correctness, hurt feelings, or some agenda as much as some of you would like to believe, it's about accuracy. Islamist is a more accurate term than Islamic, and almost all the arguments i've seen so far against the move are not really strong or encyclopedic. The idea that we should label it Islamic rather than Islamist because the terrorists say they are Islamic doesn't make sense because we aren't here to serve their political agenda, we're here to make the most accurate entries in an encyclopedia, and as they are Islamists, we should label them that way. The other argument that Islam and Islamism are essentially the same thing seems to be more of a political argument based in opinions on Islam and it doesn't seem very valid as far as I see. Islamist, a subset of Islamic, is the most accurate term and we should use it. - SantiLak  (talk) 23:10, 4 June 2017 (UTC)


 * If this is successful should we changed Christian terrorism and Jewish religious terrorism? Or is there only a need to censor language when it comes to certain instances? El cid, el campeador (talk) 15:08, 12 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, we should. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 07:31, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I look forward to seeing you add move discussions on those pages. El cid, el campeador (talk) 16:17, 13 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Protected edit request on 17 June 2017
I've closed the requested move discussion, so the template at the top of the article can be removed. The line is: —Guanaco 12:26, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:33, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 17 June 2017
"military campaing" in the 4th paragraph. Campaing should be spelled campaign. Andy1644 (talk) 18:49, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:08, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Original Research?
The attacks which were removed contained NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH. The Bosnia attack was sourced from Reuters and has its own WP article. You cannot remove attacks without reason or on a hunch. This is why the page was locked for a week. Please keep everything in until there is some sort of consensus to take out specific attacks. Further, the tagging IS EXCESSIVE. OR and Synthesis are the same thing in this instance, and the article is not out of date. Spamming tags to show you do not like an article is not good faith. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ᐁT₳LKᐃ  15:58, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

The Bosnia attack is not terrorism, the source explicitly does not say it is terrorism, and saying it is such is OR. The tags appear to have a consensus which is saying they are more than justified, it is not for one user to unilaterally declare that they are not. Also stating cannot remove on a hunch, that is tosh. You need to add with reliable source third party material, not weak flimsy single sourced breaking news reports. OR and Synthesis are not the same OR is saying x is y when it is not, or saying look I did this research and this is what X is. Synthesis is X = y there for y always is x instead of x=x and y=y. Synthesis is adding sources together to come up with a third thing in neither source. Sport and politics (talk) 16:24, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


 * This is circular. All of the cited attacks have articles, with many sources. The job of a list is not to provide all the information on an event, just to direct you to a place where you can learn more. 1 source is enough for inclusion on a list- many other sources are available. And no, the source does not say it is not terrorism. The only evidence of motive is what the attacker expressed-- which was an Islamic slogan. You can't possibly ask for more than that. One user is not unilaterally declaring anything, this list was made by many people, and information was added by multiple people since the article was unlocked. You are the one unilaterally doing anything. This is not BLP- you cannot just take out things which you have a hunch about. That is not how WP works. Your behavior on this article is and has been vandalism. You have been warned many times by many parties. Please talk before you delete. Please. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador  ᐁT₳LKᐃ  16:52, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The only evidence of motive is what the attacker expressed-- which was an Islamic slogan. You can't possibly ask for more than that. As was noted above, List of Islamist terrorist attacks has an Edit Notice that specifically requires that a reliable source that states the attack is both terrorist and Islamist must be provided for any new entry, and it furthermore states that [u]nreferenced list items may be removed at any time. Is there any particular reason you can see that this should not also become the standard applied here? TompaDompa (talk) 18:38, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more, - once again, another editor is spelling out as clear as black and white why single sourcing and indiscriminate lists are not allowed, along with the need to remove and avoid all synthesis. Sport and politics (talk) 18:45, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The only evidence of motive is what the attacker expressed-- which was an Islamic slogan. You can't possibly ask for more than that. 'Witnesses' claiming to hear Islamic slogans are often anon, but after last years Munich shooting CNN broadcast an interview with someone who claimed to be a Kosovar Muslim. The claim was repeated all around the world while official news was thin. When the full story finally came out, David Sonboly was probably a right-wing copy-cat trying to kill Muslim immigrants and the witness or reporter were either mistaken, or inventing news, discussion here. Something similar happened at Nice (not that I'm suggesting Nice wasn't Islamic, simply that the claims of hearing slogans were fairly demonstrably untrue and certainly never confirmed by police nor CCTV footage). Pincrete (talk) 19:27, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The 'Zvornik' article makes clear that the motive is HIGHLY disputed, but the text here phrases it as a certainty. The 'Brussels 2017' (which I have removed twice today), will probably turn out to be Islamic given the 'style', but we aren't in the business of 'guessing'. No RS has so far drawn any link with Islam for that attack. Pincrete (talk) 19:48, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Full protection
I've fully protected this article for 1 month, as there is way too much reverting and not enough discussion. Talk it out -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 20:41, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note for 21 July: I have sources to add where tags "citation needed" have been added in Counter-terrorism operations section. Wykx  (talk) 20:47, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to create an edit request, I have this page watched and will respond to them. They'll need consensus to be added of course -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 20:49, 21 June 2017 (UTC)