Talk:Islamic terrorism in Europe/Archive 3

Remaining Issues
Rather than giving this article even more cleanup tags, let's discuss here any issues that remain. I rewrote most of the text in the article, and while I did not do additional research on the facts, I put it in a neutral point of view the best I could. And please do not take out swaths of material without discussing it here. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ᐁT₳LKᐃ  13:29, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry the biggest problem here is PoV and Synth, lack of criteria is also a problem, but it is foolish to pretend that a few superficial changes to the first para even begins to address the bigger issues. I've restored the main cleanup tags. Pincrete (talk) 13:49, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I edited all the text in the article, not just the first paragraph. Please list specific issues (or fix them yourself) so we can work to fix them. Just labeling this article as 'bad' does not help it improve. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador  ᐁT₳LKᐃ  13:51, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The opening sentence refers to "Islamic terrorist activity in Europe increased notably starting in 2014". None of the sources appear to support that, they talk about the recent activity, but not an increase. A lot of the remaining text seeks to explain an 'increase' which is never established in the first place. Indeed the Madrid train + Moscow theatre + Beslan + 2005 London tube attacks would tend to prove the opposite, numerically a large fall in the number of casualties from attacks in Europe. I don't want my synth in, but neither the sources nor simple maths supports the proposition of any increase post-2014, the 'pushing' of which seems to be half the point of the article. Pincrete (talk) 14:06, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it's safe to say there has been an increased number. That being said I took out all mentions of an increase. Someone else added back the NPOV tag and I'm wondering why that is? I think that tag is being misused. Anyway, I think the intro is as neutral as it can get but feel free to do more. What else is there? ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador  ᐁT₳LKᐃ  14:45, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Safe to say according to what source, according to whom?. There seems to be a serious forgetting of domestic terrorism, in the UK, and Spain, as examples, from the 70's, 80's 90's and 2000's. Simply because of hysteria in the media and the bastardisation of the meaning of terrorism. Terrorism must have a political aim, and be for the furtherance of that aim. Most if not all of these acts do not fall in that category, even if they are called terrorism. These acts are mere criminal acts carried out by criminals. Murder is a crime, killing a lot of people is mass murder. Mass Murder does not equal terrorism; Harold Shipman was not a terrorist, for example. These acts of killings are nothing more than organised crime in the same way the Camorra operate. The Camorra are not labelled as terrorists, they are labeled as organised crime. These acts or no different to that. The IRA and UVF, or ETA have been a massive issues in the UK and Spain respectively, and as such forgetfulness is rife on this article. How things are portrayed in the media with the medias own bias (and other pressures both financial, and rating/readers) is not going to always be a true reflection of now or that this is not a true reflection of historical comparisons. Sport and politics (talk) 15:23, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I took out all mentions of an 'increase.' If I missed any feel free to correct those as well. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador  ᐁT₳LKᐃ  15:35, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you I have removed as such from the introduction. Sport and politics (talk) 15:55, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Couldn't agree more, - once again, see this for proof..., please stop removing tags from the article until it's agreed they should be removed. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:58, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The tags are multiplicative and/or not true. Again, spamming tags because you do not agree is not GF. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador  ᐁT₳LKᐃ  15:59, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


 * That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. Simply stating it doesn't advance your case, though. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:54, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I put European Migrant Crisis in quotes because I didn't want to be accused of anti-migrant POV. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ᐁT₳LKᐃ  15:38, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 21 June 2017
Please remove the entry for 2015 Ankara bombings from the table at Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present) (the entry tagged with ). While there is some disagreement about whether attacks in Istanbul should be included in the list, there seems to be clear consensus not to include attacks in the parts of Turkey that are unambiguously in Asia. Thanks in advance. TompaDompa (talk) 22:20, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Endorse removal.Pincrete (talk) 05:43, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 08:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Synth and OR in text
The level of SYNTH, OR and misuse of sources in the text (as opposed to list entries), is diabolical:

1) France is a top-targeted country, with nineteen attacks occured between December 2014 and April 2017,[4] … … the source used lists 8 attacks, up to July 2016 (Normandy Church), the other 11 are OR. The source makes no mention of France being a 'top-targeted country'.

2) The next para blatantly misrepresents sources: Numbers of jihadists in Western Europe have increased rapidly in recent years. French authorities in 2016 revealed they were monitoring 15,000 "radical Islamists", of which 4,000 were deemed "highest risk of carrying out an attack".[12] The UK's MI5 in 2017 said they had 23,000 officially registered "jihadist extremists" in the country, of which there was only capacity to actively monitor 3,000 at any given time

In fact the Fr source says "French authorities are monitoring around 15,000 individuals who are suspected of being radical Islamists, according to local publication La Journal du Dimanche" So the real claim is not made by 'French authorities' but rather 'local publication La Journal du Dimanche' and even that fairly minor source does not say "radical Islamists", rather 'supects'. MI5 do not say there are "23,000 officially registered "jihadist extremists" in the country", it's the Times that invents that description. Other news outlets report 23,000 people on MI5's database, some of those of course are potential terrorists, most are almost certainly simply 'names acquired during investigations'. I cannot remember the exact descriptor used by MI5, it certainly isn't "officially registered "jihadist extremists" (wtf is an 'officially registered extremist'?). Belgian figures appear to me to be equally misrepresented as 'official' figures, when they appear to be sourced to a claim made by an individual minor publication.

Almost every sentence of the text reads as a personal editorial, based on PoV and highly selective mis-reading of sources. Pincrete (talk) 16:14, 14 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I completely agree, and endorse the above comments, as a strong critique of a systemic problem with this article. The article needs a serious overhaul, and this is beginning from the change of the title from the absurd "Wave of Terror" to the information actually reflecting the content of the sources being used. More of this correction of the article and ensuring it conforms with Wikipedias Core Pillars is essential. Sport and politics (talk) 16:53, 14 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Absolutely agreed - the article right now, outside of the list entries, is in serious violation of the WP:5. Even some of the list entries are dubious, with some editors intent on including material even with no or poor sourcing. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:29, 15 June 2017 (UTC)


 * For the record, no one was against re-writing the body, just from blanking sourced entries on the list against consensus. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador  ᐁT₳LKᐃ  13:37, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is though against the adding of information without sources, and is against the adding of information which misuses sources, and is against the adding of information which bears no resemblance to the sources put next to the information. This article is one of the worst offenders for source misuse, lack of a source, or sources not reflecting the information presented and wrongly claimed to come from the source. The founder of Wikiepida could not have expressed the frustrations being felt here any better than he did here and he further goes on to say "crap is crap yank it". Sport and politics (talk) 16:28, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * There are a lot of articles that need work on WP, this is hardly the worst offender by any means. I see it's hopeless to reason with you, however, and consider this my resignation from this page, please do not contact me regarding it or anything tangentially related to this. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador  ᐁT₳LKᐃ  16:31, 15 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, now the Swedish intelligence Säpo have also come out with their report, saying that the number of "violent Islamist extremists" (their words) in Sweden have soared from 200 in 2010 to "thousands" today. The French number of 15,000 can be attributed directly to the former French Prime Minister Manuel Valls, not just a "local publication La Journal du Dimanche" as Pincrete claim above. It is all in all very unconstructive to dismiss everything with labels as "diabolical", "article is one of the worst offenders" etc., when the attitude of constructive editors normally would be, in the case that an error is found, to correct the given statement, not to demand entire paragraphs to be deleted based on more or less minor errors in how something is referenced. User2534 (talk) 16:06, 17 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Read your sources more carefully, what Valls actually says is: "There are 15,000 who are “in the process of being radicalized,” said Valls adding that some 1,400 individuals are already the subjects of investigations related to various alleged terror offences." The description "15,000 potential terror suspects" appears to be the publication's, not Valls' and is anyway fairly meaningless, (we are all 'potential murder suspects' aren't we?) The text is also still a long way from our text "monitoring 15,000 "radical Islamists" (note quotes invented by WP, as though Fr authorities actually used this term when only the paper did, note omission of 'suspects', note addition of 'monitoring', note 'Fr authorities' not 'Valls').


 * Re: the 'Swedish' source, it also says "He stressed, however, that only a few of the "thousands" had both the intention and ability to carry out a terror attack". You cannot cherry-pick the parts of a source, you endorse, that is the very definition of intentional misrepresentation.


 * I repeat, the level of OR, synth and misrepresentation of sources here is truly 'diabolical'. Pincrete (talk) 16:59, 18 June 2017 (UTC)


 * There's nothing about this that negate the fact that these are real numbers that are identified by intelligence and security sevices in several countries. Please make corrections and add nuances to this, but there is nothing close to any "intentional misrepresentation" by referencing numbers which have been provided by agencies, governments and news across Europe. User2534 (talk) 09:23, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The information must reflect the sources, and the information must meet the standards for inclusion on wikipeida. Verifiable infomration does not automatically equal inclusion. Sources do not automatically equal inclusion. the information must be notable and the information must also be more than simply news reporting. Keeping on going. I have a source and it must be included, shows that the quality and notability of the information is not being assessed. Simply being stated by a security source is not good enough that must be independently verified and reliably third party sourced. Sport and politics (talk) 09:39, 20 June 2017 (UTC)


 * So there's nothing relevant about the numbers of identified Islamic extremists with Islamic terrorism in Europe? The sources themselves put the numbers directly in the context of recent terrorist attacks, notably since many terrorists have been, currently or previously part of these investigations which becomes a debate after almost every attack. It is literally spelled out by the sources. User2534 (talk) 10:46, 20 June 2017 (UTC)


 * This needs to be confirmed b multiple independent third party sources, and as has been pointed out the information in the sources is not an accurate reflection of the content being portrayed. If the information accurately portrays the content, then the information will meet the inclusion criteria for this encyclopaedia. Simply going, numbers in the source, is not enough when that has been demonstrated to not be an accurate reflection of the source. Sport and politics (talk) 11:33, 20 June 2017 (UTC)


 * So sources need to be confirmed by sources? User2534 (talk) 11:41, 20 June 2017 (UTC)


 * If you want to see it like that, yes. The information contained in the sources needs to be reliable. It cannot just be one source giving its view, take, slant, or interpretation. The source may be wrong or the information it is portraying may be inaccurate, even though the source material is acting in good faith. The information needs to be verifiable, and single sources for contentious information do not make the claims any more reliable than having no source at all. A good minimum number to aim for is three sources, showing the wider notability of the information and the accuracy of the information. Sport and politics (talk) 14:51, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Ok, it´s a list in the first place, so lets remove the disputed parts of the written text, so that we can focus on the list itself. Alexpl (talk) 22:09, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Re: So there's nothing relevant about the numbers of identified Islamic extremists . There would be, if this was what was said by intelligence authorities, but it clearly isn't. (Some) newspapers take figures from intelligence spokespeople amend the intell to describe the people as 'identified Islamic extremists', then WP editors want to selectively report those sources 'beefing up' the figures and text even further. I'm sure intell authorities across Europe have an increasing number of people on their databases and have real difficulty spotting the dangerous. Turning that into a PoV commentary and claiming that govt. or intell authorities are saying things which they simply are not saying is truly astonishing. Anybody can go to 100s of news-sites to find hysterical, scare-mongering garbage, we don't need it here. Pincrete (talk) 08:29, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The world's most renowned news agencies like AFP are now apparently "hysterical, scare-mongering garbage". Really hope admins take note of the views here by some of these users who are heavily involved in the disruptive (deletionst) edit-warring on this page. User2534 (talk) 21:56, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Veiled threats are unwelcome. Please remember that reporting breaking news, and initial reports, of fast moving situations, and holding them to be perma-fact, which is unchallengeable, is the very essence of what Wikipedia is against. There must be follow though, and remembering that Wikiepida is not a news site, and that it is not form listing indiscriminately. Information must be accurate, up to date, relevant, verified, and reliable. simply going AP said so or CNN said so or theBBC said so does not make it golden information which is sacrosanct. Sport and politics (talk) 22:27, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * "Information must be accurate, up to date, relevant, verified, and reliable." And the problem is? What you write otherwise is so subjectively relative and floating that it could be applied to any news source at your personal will. User2534 (talk) 23:03, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * And the problem is? What editors are adding bears little relationship to what the individual source says and what the individual source says is often not borne out by other, or later sources. One source implying that the world could be flatter than we thought doesn't make it flat, certainly not proven to be so. I don't believe any admin would conclude that I have been unreasonable in defending the accuracy of sources, whereas others seem wholly indifferent to inserting 'hysterical, scare-mongering garbage' which I describe thus because it bears little or no relationship to the text in the RS used. I know of no point in this thread where I have been inaccurate or distorted sources.


 * It is not mainly the sources which are being criticised by me in this thread, it is the careless and/or PoV manner in which those sources are being used. Pincrete (talk) 09:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Tone of discussions, commenting on contributors, making veiled threats, and assigning motives to other users
The poor behaviour needs to stop on this article. making of threats, commenting on contributors, and assigning motives to editors, must stop. Everyone needs to cool off.

Wikipeida as an encyclopedia is being ignored here. The following articles need to be read by all contributors before this circular points scoring ends in nothing being achieved. The overarching and founding first read for all must be: Then users need to read all of the following:
 * 1) The Five Pillars of Wikipeida:
 * 1) Civility on Wikipeida
 * 2) Neutral Point of View on WIkipeida
 * 3) The notability for including events
 * 4) The ban on original research
 * 5) The requirement that everything be verified
 * 6) The explicits of what Wikipedia is not:
 * 7) Wikipedia not being a place for personal thought or personal analysis in articles
 * 8) Wikipedia not being a collection of unverifiable speculation
 * 9) Wikpiedia not being a newspaper
 * 10) Wikipeidia not being a collection of indiscriminate information
 * 11) Wikipeida is not a battleground which some users are turning this page into

Finally and somewhat most importantly there must be a remembering that some of these events detail actions by people who are still alive. and simply being in prison or in hospital does not mean articles containing information about them need not conform to:
 * 1) The notability of people guidelines; and
 * 2) Wikipedia policy on information about living persons added to any Wikipedia article or page

Let's all calm down and actually follow the purpose of Wikipeidia as at the end of the day editors are here by choice and if editors want to do something outside of the scope of this encyclopedia please go ahead and do so. No one is forced to stay.

Sport and politics (talk) 09:23, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Entirely agree, hence the full protection - thank you all for your edit requests so far, I've done one and am waiting for some discussion on the other two. I'd recommend that any other admins who come along to help out with the requests take a moment to read through the discussions which have been taking place here, and make themselves familiar with the issues which caused the full protection to be implemented -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 10:23, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Not Turkey?
See 2017 Istanbul nightclub shooting and 2016 Atatürk Airport attack. Beshogur (talk) 19:46, 24 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree with . The attacks in Istanbul should be mentioned. But I'm afraid that most editors will not agree. They reluctantly included Russia in the article, let alone Turkey. --TonyaJaneMelbourne (talk) 09:13, 26 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I think that it should be not included, because a) Turkey is not part of Europe (for the most part) and b) should have (or maybe does have?) its own article for Turkey vs Islamic Terrorism. This is in particular because sometimes shelling of Turkish cities from Syria by ISIS occurs, and because in Turkey there are other terrorist attacks, for example by the PKK/Kurds, plus the alleged terrorism of the Gülen people. Furthermore, there have been reports of turkish support for ISIS, which obviously would be needed to be stated in such an article. --Tscherpownik (talk) 22:35, 26 May 2017 (UTC)


 * You may as well exclude Russia from the article with same reasons. In addition, not all Islamist attacks in Europe is ISIL, see 2015 Île-de-France attacks and 2017 Saint Petersburg Metro bombing (in both attacks al-Qaeda is responsible), so you as well may exclude these attacks from the article too. I think if attack took place on European soil and has Islamist roots, the attack should be mentioned in the article. 2017 Istanbul nightclub shooting and 2016 Atatürk Airport attack took place in Instanbul (in most European city of Turkey), also ISIL is responsible for attacks. Mention of the attacks in the European part of Turkey is a good idea. --TonyaJaneMelbourne (talk) 18:18, 27 May 2017 (UTC)


 * The Istanbul Atatürk Airport and nightclub are located on west bank of Bosphorus strait: so actually they are in Europe. --Holapaco77 (talk) 10:37, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 22 June 2017
In the Counter-terrorism operations section, replace [citation needed] tags by relevant sources: - For 'January 2015 anti-terrorism operations in Belgium': ; - For '2015 Saint-Denis raid': ; - For '2016 Brussels police raids':. Wykx (talk) 04:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Comment on 'January 2015 anti-terrorism operations in Belgium', the ref does not mention an injured attacker. The same problem exists on the article page and has been tagged by me. Beyond that I have no objection to using that source. Pincrete (talk) 08:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I propose to replace the '1 suspect' by 0 in the 'injuries' column at the same time sources are added. Wykx  (talk) 12:34, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ I think &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:47, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 22 June 2017
Content in the background section that was deleted due to some complaints that there were too few good sources have been rewritten by me to comply with all issues, as follows:

"The numbers of Islamic extremists have risen rapidly in recent years in Europe. In 2016, French Prime Minister Manuel Valls said that police and intelligence services were tracking 15,000 extremists in France.  After the 2017 Manchester Arena bombing, British authorities and MI5 revealed they had 500 ongoing investigations into 3,000 individuals, with a further 20,000 having been "subjects of interest" in the past. The latter number was noted since the Manchester and Westminster attackers were only among "former subject[s] of interest."   In Germany, the Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz (BfV) reported they had registered over 10,000 "radical Salafists" in 2017, double as many as had been registered by 2013. The Swedish Security Service (Säpo) said the number of Islamic extremists in Sweden had soared to "thousands" in 2017, up from 200 in 2010, which it said was "a new historic challenge," confirming that "some of these extremists may be planning terrorist attacks." User2534 (talk) 09:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Some of this is a misrepresentation of the source material. The Swedish sources do state the section as written. That is though not the whole picture of what the articles go on to say. Source 9 as listed above states "while noting that only a handful were deemed able to carry out a terror attack". Source 10 states "But very few have both the desire and the ability to carry out actual attacks" Source 11 specifically uses the word may, and the word may does not confirm attacks will happen. Anyone may be planning anything. Can a translation of the German source in to English be provided so that verifiability of the source can be undertaken by all and not just those who understand German.

There needs to be some discussion of the sentence "with a further 20,000 having been "subjects of interest" in the past. The latter number was noted since the Manchester and Westminster attackers were only among "former subject[s] of interest." The phrase "former subject of interest" and "subject of Interest" is jargon, and has no real meaning, in the context above.For all it could mean they were racially profiled to simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time so showed up on a computer database. This needs more explanation before being included.

In relation to the sources on France. only one of the sources uses the word 'tracks' none specifically state 'Tracking" this appears to not be accurate reflection of the whole source. 15,000 is a number which appears in all three sources, but it appears to be being taken out of context in the above sentence.

These issues need addressing before it should be added to the article. Sport and politics (talk) 10:12, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Now you are just making problems up for the sake of causing disruption. If any of this are real concerns, please correct them if possible. User2534 (talk) 10:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * This does not even begin to answer the issues raised above. Sentence 1 uses a Swedish source to describe UK and Fr figures, UK sources do not describe the 23,000 figure as 'extremists', in fact the claim is contradicted by the later claim that the 20,000 were 'subjects of interest'. Which are they? These sources do not appear to support the claim that numbers have increased, except the Sw. ones. If you want to attribute the claim to 'the local', that would be a different matter, but of course it would have zero authority then. The sentence about Valls, completely misrepresents what he said as pointed out by Sp+Pol and by me previously. When the first few sentences are not remotely supportable, one doesn't feel like reading the rest. Pincrete (talk) 10:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * This is a valid edit request, and considering the recent edit warring is a really good step towards sorting out the dispute in a civil manner. I won't tolerate comments here which attempt to undermine the dispute resolution which is going on. As far as I can see, Sport and politics is not making problems up for the sake of causing disruption -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 11:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, the problem now is that after taking note of the issues raised (some of which were valid and reasonable) I have gone through the sources and done my best to accurately represent what the sources describe, noting both the relevance and wording used. Still there seem to be an extreme attention to whatever detail in precise wordings which I honestly have problems undertanding what the problem is, and more importantly how it can be solved. The underlying theme from the two users that continues now seems to be disproving the very essence of what the sources describe in ways that seem nearly impossible to accomodate. If you can correct this please do, but the numbers are the numbers, I didn't make them up. User2534 (talk) 11:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * No, the problem is still that the sources you are citing are poor, imprecise, contradict themselves, or have been misrepresented, as pointed out above. The issues have been explained and outlined clearly by Pincrete and Sport and politics. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:09, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes. The BBC, Reuters, AFP, or "hysterical, scare-mongering garbage" as it is called here. User2534 (talk) 12:12, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * nb edit conflict Pincrete (talk) 12:15, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I've just noticed that the Telegraph figures (and Telegraph is strongest source here on UK figures), doesn't even say that the 20,000 are 'Islamic' figures. I don't have any objection to using the expression "subjects of interest", it is an (intentionally?) imprecise way of saying 'people whose names we've collected for one reason or another down the years, who it would be silly for us to delete and who include X people who we think are dangerous". What I object to is poor sources describing those 20,000 in 'beefed up' language that MI5 have never used and having that version put into WP voice. Pincrete (talk) 12:15, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * "subjects of interest" is truly incredibly "beefed up language", and of course as always your personal speculations in direct conflict with reliable sources are still more important than what reliable sources actually say (whichever word is used). User2534 (talk) 12:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * You appear to want to interpret "subject of interest" (which means what, exactly? The same thing in every jurisdiction? A scale from "someone whose name was flagged on a database" all the way to "suspected terrorist") to mean "suspected extremist or terrorist." It doesn't. And it's OR. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * It is literally spelled out by the sources even detailing the context, I haven't interpreted anything other than direct references. User2534 (talk) 13:01, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I never say, nor imply, that The BBC, Reuters, AFP, are "hysterical, scare-mongering garbage", also I record the opposite of "subjects of interest" is truly incredibly "beefed up language", namely, that this term is "(intentionally?) imprecise" and does not mean what individual editors want it to mean. Pincrete (talk) 09:02, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

It appears clear the information as it currently stands does not reach the a community standard for inclusion and it seems futile to keep going over this issue. The community standards for inclusion are by consensus not being met. Better sourcing and better wording are needed before this can be included. Simply going round in circles with one side going but it is in the source, and the other side going the source does not portray that is pointless and unconstructive. It is time to move to a different area of issue with the article and come back to this when the issues pointed out with the proposed edit are addressed fully by the user calling for the inclusion of the information. Sport and politics (talk) 14:01, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Brussels attack (june 20th 2017): edit request
The federal prosecuter has stated that, contrary to early things stated, the killed attacker dit NOT have a suicide vest. After de bombing largely failed, he ran towards a soldier and he was then shot. I posted a link from CNN as source here. de Zwetlandse Wikipediaan (talk) 08:04, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Please use an edit request template to make this request -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 09:20, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Removal of "The Netherlands" in section "Belligerents"
The Netherlands is listed under Belligerents, even though it's not mentioned anywhere in the article and has not suffered any attacks. Therefore I do not see its purpose in Belligerents. 217.103.95.118 (talk) 08:24, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


 * There is discussion above (Casualty tallies in infobox), about whether ANY of the infobox is apt, given that this is not a military conflict in the usual sense. Pincrete (talk) 09:22, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


 * That's a slight exaggeration on your part, but whatever. In the meantime, this should be wholly uncontroversial. I made an edit request. TompaDompa (talk) 11:00, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 23 June 2017
Please remove The Netherlands from the "Belligerents" in the infobox, as it is not mentioned anywhere else in the article and has not suffered any attacks (as noted above). This should be wholly uncontroversial. TompaDompa (talk) 10:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 11:02, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Attacks in France and UK
Re summary section para 1:

''During this period, France has been a top European target, with 19 attacks between December 2014 and April 2017; source 4 this included the January 2015 Île-de-France attacks, the November 2015 Paris attacks, and the July 2016 Nice truck attack. The United Kingdom saw a rise in terrorist activity in early 2017, with three major attacks carried out in a span of four months (see the 2017 Westminster attack, the May 2017 Manchester Arena bombing, and the June 2017 London Bridge attack). Other notable targets in Europe have included the Belgium, Germany, and Russia. The trans-continental city of Istanbul also saw both bombings and shootings, including in January 2016, June 2016 and January 2017. ''

As previously pointed out by me above, much of this para is OR. The used Guardian ref actually says 8 attacks in France in the 18 months from Jan 2015 (Hebdo) to July 2016 (Normandy church), the other 11 attacks are not supported by the ref used, though I have seen BBC sources referring to either 2/3 since then, but 11 more is not supported by any RS I've seen. There may be other accounts of how many in what period and I have no strong feeling of which figure is used beyond using the best source(s). Since it may well be the case that sources do not wholly agree on numbers of attacks, or may discount 'failed' or trivial or disputed ones, we should perhaps attribute.

Nor is 'top European target' supported, though it probably could be, though I don't see the need for such 'comparatives'. Ditto 'rise' in UK, the same thing could be said more succinctly either by omitting the comparison, or saying when the previous incident was (Rigby or 2005).

Lastly, do we need the 'majors' and 'notables'? If they weren't significant we shouldn't be mentioning them in the summary. Pincrete (talk) 14:36, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I think it can be removed from the article. I'm afraid that we will see a lot of bloody attacks in Western Europe, Russia and Turkey. Each time expanding of this section will be moral dilemma. Moreover, we do not have criteria for identifying major or minor attacks.--TonyaJaneMelbourne (talk) 12:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

AfD
Since there now seems to be consensus among the few active users remaining on this page, and the consequently gradual withdrawal of almost any dissenting views, I think the solution at this point must be to nominate this article for deletion. At this point this is the consensus per discussion above, and a nomination will get my full endorsement. User2534 (talk) 13:36, 24 June 2017 (UTC)


 * An AfD discussion while there's an ongoing RfC on scope seems to me like jumping the gun something fierce. TompaDompa (talk) 13:56, 24 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Indeed, let's see what the RFC outcome is. Personally, though, I'm not seeing much reason for the existence of this article except to promulgate some OR and Synth, which has now been toned down, and most of the contents already exist, usually better sourced, in List of Islamist terrorist attacks. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:03, 24 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Previous merge discussion here. Pincrete (talk) 14:18, 24 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Except that this is the second time in the last 3 days that I have attempted to upgrade the article with sources supporting the idea that there has been a wave of terrorism since 2014, a wave that has received WP:SIGCOV, only to find that that page is protected form editing. It is disingenuous to claim that we hsould move toward deletion without allowing editors to upgrade the article.  To be clear, I am not blocked individually, this is some sort of blanked block.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:50, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Article I intended to source to stated  "The death toll jumped dramatically from four people killed by terrorists in Europe in 2014 to 151 in 2015 (the year of the Bataclan), and then 142 in 2016 (including the 87 killed in Nice on Bastille Day).". Just tag it for improvement.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:04, 25 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Which is cherry picking. Why not pick a year from the recent past when the IRA, ETA and the Red Brigade were operating and compare the much smaller number of attacks to 2014-present? We've been discussing this on the page already - see the last few comments (and the links contained therein) here. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:40, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * France had an extremely bad 2 years from 2015 - Autumn 2016, nobody disputes that. But where are the sources saying that this represents a general trend across Europe or that this trend continues into the present? Even if a few exist, do the preponderance of good RS come to that conclusion? I think not. The BBC in Autumn 2016 concluded exactly the opposite, even allowing for the very high figures in France that year The number for Western Europe is 143, which is lower than many years in the 1970s. The recent UK attacks are horrific, but they are the first there since 2005 and do not even begin to approach the normal annual average deaths in the UK during "the troubles". Many things may have changed in recent years, including the role of the internet, but it necessitates extremely selective reporting of sources to claim that there is "a wave of terrorism", a term which appears to be your own invention, not one applied to this period by the bulk of sources. … … … ps none of us can edit, get consensus for your additions per normal editing practice. Pincrete (talk) 19:53, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm doing my best to stay out of this article because it causes people to act irrationally, but good lord. It's OR/Synth? ? Wouldn't every single list on WP be OR/Synth by that logic? Yes. Lists are NOT the ten commandments, they are not set in stone-- they are editor-created compilations of information. I used List of Islamist terrorist attacks to add some attacks to THIS list, but they were reverted because apparently it was not well sourced or it was OR or something. Seemingly there are a lot of WP editors who think that the very IDEA of this article is Islamophobic, but that's absurdist POV. A way to support your hopes of deleting this article are not continuously blanking content and removing context so that no article remains. People are being so irrational about this article and are asking for burdens of proof which are unobtainable and illogical. It's a sort of systematic white-washing/rose-colored glass which is trying to convince WP that islamic terrorism is not happening. And it doesn't matter if there were more of less attacks from 2014 to present than there were in 1970. If there was one, there can be an article about it. There is literally no basis for deletion other than WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ᐁT₳LKᐃ  19:09, 26 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Re: it doesn't matter if there were more of less attacks from 2014 to present than there were in 1970. If there was one, there can be an article about it. ..... It does matter if you have text saying there has been an increase or that Europe is in the clutches of a wave of terror, because that text becomes, at best, synth, and at worst a lie. Who has said that Islamic terrorism isn't happening? Calm, rational coverage of a phenomenon is not 'rose coloured glasses', it's calm rational coverage. I don't believe I have ever used the word Islamaphobic, on or off WP, and don't remember anyone expressing that thought here.


 * The standards of sourcing are the same everywhere on WP, if you feel they are being wrongly applied here, try WP:RSN or WP:RfC. There is no special get-out-guideline that says an editor can write what they want because they are warning the world about the perils of Islamic terrorism. If the sources don't exist, the info probably doesn't deserve to be here. I discovered today, that a highly respected european database, records just over half as many deaths from Islamic Terrorism in Europe as WP does, and that's after us removing dozens in the last year from here. It also has approx half as many attacks in France as WP does up to Dec 2016. Obviously some WP editors have divining rods, which professional experts lack.


 * I agree with you that the article will probably be tidied, or merged, not deleted. Pincrete (talk) 20:00, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposed redirect

 * The more I think about it, the more I come to realize that the independent, novel, notable, article supporting phenomenon on which we should have an article is the international series of ISIS-related attacks that began in the spring of 2014, the year the "Islamic State" declared itself a  "caliphate" in Syria.   I suggest that we redirect this article to International ISIS attacks or similar, and use the work already put into this article to create that one, pruning as necessary.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:36, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Here: is CNN: ISIS goes global: 143 attacks in 29 countries have killed 2,043 .   A 2015  Europol  report entitled Changes in Modus Operandi of Islamic State Terrorist Attacks (available in pdf) is very good on the subject.
 * Other sources that I happened on while considering the questions raised at this discussion include:
 * Where ISIS Has Directed and Inspired Attacks Around the World New York Times
 * ISIS has pledged to attack China Next; Here's Why Foreign Affairs
 * Years of terror: Deadly attacks in Europe since 2014 The Irish Times
 * In Brussels, the first of the Syrian jihadis comes home to roost Times of Israel, .E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:16, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Propose redirect to Global ISIS terrorism International ISIS attacks.
Propose redirecting this to International ISIS attacks. The international series of ISIS-related attacks that began in the spring of 2014, the year the "Islamic State" declared itself a  "caliphate" in Syria, is a notable topic. A small sample of the sources that can be used to support such an article, which would include lists and incorporate relevant incidents form the current list, include:
 * CNN: ISIS goes global: 143 attacks in 29 countries have killed 2,043.
 * A 2015 Europol  report entitled Changes in Modus Operandi of Islamic State Terrorist Attacks (available in pdf)  very good on the subject.
 * Where ISIS Has Directed and Inspired Attacks Around the World New York Times
 * ISIS has pledged to attack China Next; Here's Why Foreign Affairs
 * Years of terror: Deadly attacks in Europe since 2014 The Irish Times
 * In Brussels, the first of the Syrian jihadis comes home to roost Times of Israel, .E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:36, 26 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Well the Irish Times lists 11 attacks in the whole of Europe from 2014-2016, which is considerably under our 19 for the same period. The Irish Times doesn't describe most of them as connected with ISIS, indeed it doesn't even mention most of them as 'Islamic' at all, simply "deadly attacks by militants in Europe. So no, no chance, when the first source one reads doesn't even begin to support a proposal, one doesn't feel like looking at the others ...... (ps when did "International" start to mean around 8 named countries in Europe?).Pincrete (talk) 14:56, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The first source was CNN for a reason. I wrote "international" because I meant "Internaitonal - but "Global" would have been better.  Changing that now.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:27, 26 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Note that the CNN list includes multiple attack on every continent except for South America and Antartica. Note also that this topic is not covered in the main article Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, nor are there attacks presently goruped in an article or list that I can find, althoubh there are 22 countries in Category:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant by country.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:33, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I am not going to comment in detail on this proposal which is in my opinion hysteria. I just think it is an awful proposed development of the article, and a retrograde step. The article has more fundamental issues regarding if it should exist in the first place, and that is a matter or the RfC. This proposal belongs in the RfC as well. Sport and politics (talk) 17:54, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * nb edit conflict
 * The CNN article lists this as an ISIS attack, all UK sources and UK authorities concluded the perp was long-term mentally ill, so it does not inspire much confidence. Time and time again the CNN says 'The attack is believed to have been inspired by ISIS', believed by whom? However the main objection is that there is an RfC on the scope of this list, there is someone else suggesting deletion, now you want to completely alter the scope of this article. I believe there already are articles on the impact of ISIS on countries outside the middle East, so why the change is proposed is not clear. Pincrete (talk) 18:00, 26 June 2017 (UTC) –


 * I don't particularly share the view that this would be a step in the wrong direction, but I do agree that this is not the time. Wait for the results of the RfC. TompaDompa (talk) 18:56, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't oppose if the direction were towards specific, defined, geographical areas, but I suspect most of those articles already exist. Pincrete (talk) 08:25, 27 June 2017 (UTC)