Talk:Islamic terrorism in Europe/Archive 7

UNDUE?
From my TP: "I do not understand . Care to explain? TompaDompa (talk) 08:07, 30 March 2018 (UTC)" Kind regards, Kleuske (talk) 08:19, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * " Why are we taking Brady's perspective as authoritative? Especially in the WP:LEAD?" Why not? It seems to be an academic source and you have given no reason whatsoever not to take her seriously.
 * "I don't think we should be repeating the opinion of a US-based think tank in WP:WikiVoice, especially not in the WP:LEAD.)", please explain which nationalities can be repeated and why. Also please explain why a US-based think-talk is excluded. More specifically, please explain why the statements based on these sources are erroneous or given too much weight.
 * With regards to the first: it's not that it's a bad source. It's that it's a single source about a contentious subject matter (see WP:YESPOV). By putting that one in the WP:LEAD, we are in effect endorsing that viewpoint over others. I refer you to the previous discussions on the scope as well as the ongoing one for details about why this is not entirely uncontroversial. With regards to the second: you're right that being US-based is not a problem. It wasn't necessary of me to note that in my edit summary or the tag reason. But being a think tank (as opposed to a government agency or an academic source, for instance) is a problem. Its raison d'être is influencing opinions. Here, too, there's a problem with us endorsing that viewpoint over others, especially in the WP:LEAD (and for that sentence there's also a problem of expressing opinion like fact, but that's a WP:WikiVoice issue, not a WP:WEIGHT issue). TompaDompa (talk) 08:43, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * There's nothing stopping you from adding more sources. That's a more positive way to react than to poison the well for existing ones. As to the 'think-tank'-argument, it's the main purpose of any publication (newspapers, periodicals, government agencies, academic sources, etc) to influence peoples opinions. Influencing opinions is the main reason people talk. If we're going to exclude sources on that grounds, we can't use sources at all. Again, please point out the problems you have with the statements supported by these sources, since you seem to disapprove of the viewpoints presented. Kleuske (talk) 08:57, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Besides. Wikipedia does not "endorse" anything. Wikipedia summarizes existing sources, per WP:NPOV. Kleuske (talk) 09:00, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with TompaD that placing the opinion of an individual in the opening sentences is very UNDUE. What also concerns me is that it is linked to the assertion: "Since 2014, a sudden rise in impact from Islamic terrorism in Europe is attributed by Erika Brady to ....". AFAI can see, Brady says no such thing about a 'sudden rise' in 2014 in Europe and most stats agree that any 'sudden rise' was later, notably in France. Also why/what is 'impact'? Were there more incidents/more deaths? It looks an awful lot like an attempt to justify a 2014 date which most of us agree is largely arbitary, or at least not a clear or dramatic 'turning point'. Pincrete (talk) 09:11, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I could add more sources that do not agree with the one currently in the WP:LEAD, but it would only serve to prove a WP:POINT: that the scope of this article is not clearly defined, as outlined in the discussions I linked above (and that's also the reason the cleanup list template is on the article). As such, I consider it much more constructive to build WP:CONSENSUS here on the talk page and tagging questionable additions instead of removing them outright in order to avoid WP:Edit warring, especially since this article is subject to WP:1RR per WP:GS/SCW&ISIL. With regards to the think tank point: I don't agree that the main purpose of any publication is to influence people's opinions. Perhaps I have a stricter view of what counts as attempting to influence opinions than you do. I would also like to point out that I didn't say that we can't use it as a source. I objected to repeating ISW's assertion in WP:WikiVoice in the WP:LEAD. ISW being a think tank makes that more problematic than it had been if the source were e.g. an academic paper or the United Nations (at least if you ask me). Finally, I didn't say I disapprove of the viewpoints presented. I dispute that they are an accurate reflection of the WP:RELIABLE sources, because the reliable sources don't agree with each other (again, see the multiple discussions on the scope for details). That disagreement becomes a problem for us if we cannot present the different viewpoints, angles, and approaches to the subject in a way compliant with WP:NPOV. Doing so is not impossible, but it is difficult and requires quite a bit of effort on the part of the editors. The thing that makes this so difficult to get right is that describing a single viewpoint makes the problem worse, not better, because an inaccurate or misleading description of a dispute is worse than no description at all (see Wikipedia's WP:Editing policy, which states that on Wikipedia a lack of content is better than misleading or false content, albeit in a different context). The only real solution I see is to summarize as many of the multiple different viewpoints as possible and adding that all at once, so that the description of the dispute is fairly comprehensive from the start (i.e. sufficiently comprehensive to be net informative as opposed to net misleading) before details can be added one at a time. TompaDompa (talk) 23:51, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * My two cents: is this the Erika Brady discussed? This Erika Brady was in 2017 a PhD candidate at St Andrews, which per WP:SCHOLARSHIP passes the threshold for a citable scholar. If sources don't agree, the sensible thing should be to present different viewpoints rather than deleting all of them. AadaamS (talk) 10:20, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe that's the same Erika Brady, yes. And I agree that we should present different viewpoints. That doesn't belong in the WP:LEAD, however, but in the body (with a summary in the lead). And it needs to be fairly comprehensive, or else it doesn't pass WP:NPOV (adding one viewpoint doesn't make it a work in progress, but a violation of WP:NPOV since Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources., see WP:WEIGHT). Further complicating this issue is that what is in dispute is the article's scope. TompaDompa (talk) 10:46, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree, the viewpoints on the exact beginning date should be discussed. From what i see most sources discuss summer 2014 (establishment of ISIL) and October 2014 (ISIL statement threatening Europe) as the beginning date for this terror sequence. Some sources also speak of 2011, 2012, late 2013, February 2014 (convicted terror plot in Nice) and May 2014 (Jewish museum attack) as beginning points. All are fine per WP:NEUTRAL citing of WP:RS sources. The bottom line - 2014 is the beginning year per WP:COMMON, we can have more discussion how to present it.GreyShark (dibra) 19:19, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't share your perception that most sources use that start date (as I've outlined above). Care to specify which sources you're referring to? TompaDompa (talk) 21:46, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * A recent PhD is a very low 'stature' threshold on which to frame the opening remarks of a massively documented phenomenon IMO. Pincrete (talk) 18:13, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * We can have better sources indeed. That one however, was chosen by TompaDompa himself.21:00, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? I didn't add that source, . Also, what are you trying to imply? The suitableness of a source is wholly independent of which editor happened to "choose" it. TompaDompa (talk) 06:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

On the scope
I'll try again to address the issue of the scope being unclear and not supported by WP:Reliable sources. I'll quote myself from last summer: This should hopefully go without saying, but the WP:Reliable sources on the scope are not the news media, but agencies involved in counterterrorism/intelligence (both national and supranational, e.g. MI5 and Interpol, respectively) and academia (e.g. the UCDP). In other words, when it comes to a pattern in terrorism activity, we leave ascertaining the nature of that pattern to those sources—not to the news media. With that in mind, I looked into what scopes some such sources have. Some of these are already cited in the article. Considering the above, I make the following observations as to what I believe best reflects the sources: Feel free to look into further sources like these and see if a clearer picture emerges. One alternative I can think of to sidestep the issue is to get rid of this article entirely and merge the contents into List of Islamist terrorist attacks and List of terrorist incidents linked to ISIL (and possibly others).
 * Academic: ISIL-related plots and attacks in the West (specified as Western Europe, North America, and Australia/New Zealand) since 2011 (though the earliest such attack they identified was in September 2012).
 * Academic: The UCDP lists nothing remotely similar to this article's current scope, or any of the suggested ones. They have an IS - Civilians entry including several of the attacks on our list, but that one starts in 2004 and is not limited to Europe.
 * Academic: Jihadist terrorism in the West in general and France in particular, starting in 2005 (though in particular since 2015).
 * Agency: Europol releases yearly reports on all terrorist activity (i.e. failed, foiled, and completed attacks) in the European Union (they are, after all, an EU agency). They list a category of terrorism that has variously been called "Islamist terrorism" (2007–2011 reports, i.e. terrorism 2006–2010), "Religiously inspired terrorism" (2012–2015 reports, i.e. terrorism 2011–2014), and "Jihadist terrorism" (2016–2017 reports, i.e. terrorism 2015–2016). It is worth noting that while their scope is limited to the EU when it comes to statistics (again, Europol is an EU agency), their scope when analysing trends and assessing threats extends beyond the borders of the EU. With regards to this category of terrorism, they have made the observation that terrorist groups have made calls for attacks in the West (specified as: Europe, as well as Australia, Canada and the USA) since at least their 2014 report (i.e. terrorism in 2013), and this carries on through the 2017 report (terrorism in 2016), which goes on to discuss the specific example of the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting.
 * Ideologically, the scope should be jihadism. Focus should be especially on ISIL, but not to the exclusion of other actors such as AQAP.
 * Geographically, the scope should be "the West". That is to say that unlike the current list, Turkey and Russia should be excluded, and the US and Australia should be included. This is how the sources view and describe the matter in geopolitical terms.
 * Temporally, there does not seem to be any even rough consensus as to the start date. The current one – 2014 – seems however to be an arbitrary choice which is not supported by reliable sources.

Pinging users involved in previous discussions on the scope – please weigh in on this issue. TompaDompa (talk) 12:25, 24 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Initial reaction, the date is indeed arbitary. Whilst some changes have taken place since 2014, including a move from mainly AQ, to mainly IS. A move from mainly 'dedicated cells' to mainly lone operators, and a move 'online', the 2014 date doesn't mark a significant milestone in any of these, nor in number or scale of attacks. We could move the date back, but I would be opposed to moving it further back than circa 9/11, since it would be nearly impossible to establish before that date what was 'Islamist' and what was simply done by Muslims (PLO etc). We do already limit to 'Jihadist terrorism', to the extent that 'Islamic/Islamist terrorism' are synonyms of it, we exclude acts that are simply done by Muslims and which are not officially described by one of these terms or a very close synonym.


 * The problem in limiting to 'recognised' groups would be that it is sometimes unclear if the perp actually has any specific affiliation (and we would need to take IS claims of responsibility at face value - which I'm not necessarily opposed to - when attributed).


 * I agree that Russia and Turkey represent quite different scenarios, with distinct local/historical motives for crimes - but how we come up with an objective definition of such a geog area, I don't know. I don't see why/how we could limit to "the West", if made too loose, we simply duplicate other articles, and it would seem bizarre to include US & Aust in an article mainly about Europe. (in fact mainly about Belg, Fr, Ger, UK and Sp).


 * I completely agree that academic sources and - even more so - dedicated agencies should be our main source for analysis, particularly analysis of trends. News sources tend to react too much to the most recent event and not form any 'overview'.Pincrete (talk) 18:24, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Until academic sources are available, news sources are the best sources available. AadaamS (talk) 19:25, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree, they are the only immediate source (for info about the event). I was meaning more 'connecting text' and trends. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pincrete (talk • contribs) 19:55, 24 March 2018 (UTC)


 * My two cents - Media feature length reports can be relevant. I agree that "the west" is perhaps better than Europe - though there are sources (mainly European ones) discussing Europe as a set. Start year is fuzzy - we discussed this previously. One could support 2011-2 as well.Icewhiz (talk) 20:24, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree, the Islamic Terror in the West is certainly a topic, with Europe being a subtopic. Regarding start date - some indeed point to around 2011/12, others to early 2014 and I saw also sources saying that ISIL's terror threat announcement against European countries on October 2014 was the trigger to count from.GreyShark (dibra) 14:43, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

1) I am against the exclusion of Russia from the article, as well as against the inclusion of non-European Western nations. The latest Islamist terrorism incidents in Russia have nothing to do with the Insurgency in the North Caucasus, but have common premises with events in France, the UK and other European countries (firstly, illegal immigration and the consequences of immigration from third world countries). 2) I strongly support the exclusion of Turkey from the article. At the moment, I do not see anything in common between terrorism in Turkey and terrorism in Europe. --TonyaJaneMelbourne (talk) 15:07, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think a reasonable scope could be to have the scope simply be non-Islamic countries, as these terrorist attacks are attempts to turn non-Islamic countries into Islamic countries per long-term islamist doctrine. I am in favour of moving back the date to be earlier in time. AadaamS (talk) 17:17, 25 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment - the original name of this article was Wave of Terror in Europe and this referred to 2014-present rise in terror activity and shift from sporadic AQ events to mainly IS-related terrorism. Trying to change the topic and the scope of this article doesn't alter the fact that post-2014 (or sometimes post 2012) mainly IS-related terror in Europe is a notable phenomenon, which is highly reflected in media and academic sources:
 * Time - These 5 Facts Explain Why Europe Is Ground Zero for Terrorism
 * The Atlantic - Europe Under Siege
 * The Irish Times - Deaths from terrorism in Europe have spiked since 2014
 * Telegraph - 'Lone wolf' attacks in Europe are nothing of the sort
 * FT - Lone wolf attacks raise the tempo of terror in Europe
 * GW U-ty - Allies Under Attack: The Terrorist Threat to Europe
 * Journal of Int-l Relations - An analysis of Patterns of Change Arising from the Syrian Conflict: Islamic Terrorism, Refugee Flows and Political Destabilization in Europe
 * The above references to Islamic Terrorism in Europe topic, don't of course deny a wider phenomenon of the Islamic Terror in the West, which is addressed by this academic overview EUI - Islamic Terrorism in the West and International Migrations: The “Far” or “Near” Enemy Within? What is the Evidence.GreyShark (dibra) 09:00, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll summarize the scopes of the two non-media sources above in the same way as I did with the previous ones:
 * Academic: ISIL-related terrorism in Europe and the United States.
 * Academic: Islamic terrorism in Europe from 2006 to 2015.
 * I'd also like to clarify that I'm not saying that it isn't a notable phenomenon. What I'm saying is that the scope of this article is not clearly defined – there's not much agreement among editors about what it is, or for that matter what it should be. Think of it like this: if this article had never been created, and we wanted to split the contents off from List of Islamist terrorist attacks now, how would we do it? TompaDompa (talk) 20:43, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, i'm quoting now from your academic source above titled "An analysis of Patterns of Change Arising from the Syrian Conflict: Islamic Terrorism, Refugee Flows and Political Destabilization in Europe" "Whether the terrorist attacks conducted in Europe since 2011 were the result of ISIS itself, inspired by ISIS or were an opposing response to the Islamism understood to be espoused by ISIS, 2011 indicates a clear marker for terrorist activity. In addition, while there is an increase in attacks globally from 2011, and a higher fatality rate in Europe of 318 following 2011 (60 fatalities occurred in Europe in the same range of years before 2011), a relatively sudden rise in impact takes place in 2014. This was the year in which ISIS reinvented itself and established a Caliphate. If we are content to connect the rise of ISIS to the opportunities provided by the Syrian Conflict, and the rise in global terror attacks and an increased death toll in Europe to the increased influence of ISIS as a terrorist organization, it is clear that the Syrian Conflict has on some level contributed to a significant international terrorism crisis which looks set to continue for some time."


 * Looks like the conclusion is pretty much clear - the latest Islamic terror spike in Europe began in 2014.GreyShark (dibra) 20:52, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * For one thing, I dispute that one source supporting 2014 is enough to make the conclusion "pretty much clear" when there are other sources that support different years. For another, I dispute that the source specifically supports 2014; the above quote says that there was an increase in impact in 2014, but points to 2011 as a clear marker for terrorist activity. The source also refers to 2015 as the year ISIL became more active internationally. I'd also like to point out that the final sentence you quoted began "If we are content [...]" (emphasis mine), and the next sentence reads "This is not statistically sound, but it is an accurate description of what the data above presents." This is not as clear-cut as you're trying to make it seem. TompaDompa (talk) 22:32, 29 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Would support merging the contents into List of Islamist terrorist attacks, List of terrorist incidents linked to ISIL, and/or others, as appropriate. This article is trespassing into the areas of synthesis and OR - start date is completely arbitrary, and there is demonstrably less terrorism in Europe now than there was 20 or even 30 years ago. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:51, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * There is not less Islamic terrorism in Europe now than there was 20 or 30 years ago. WP:SYNTH and WP:OR is not an issue. The Europol TE SAT reports treat Islamic Terrorism in EU as a separate subject with a chapter of its own, clearly there are enough sources to demonstrate notability. The start date could be debated, but the scope of the article I debate only as a question of maintainability of the articles. AadaamS (talk) 16:11, 26 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I didn't specify what type of terrorism, and there is objectively less terrorism now than 30 years ago. Your opinion on synth and OR not being an issue is just an opinion, but they are actual policies and need to be respected. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 20:15, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Objectively there is many times more Islamic terrorism these times than 20, 30 or 50 years ago. This is an article about Islamic terrorism, therefore that's the subject of this discussion. This is WP:NOTFORUM for other forms of terrorism. There are sources which prove WP:GNG of this subject, therefore it merits a standalone article. AadaamS (talk) 04:39, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with AadaamS - the claim that "there is demonstrably less terrorism in Europe now than there was 20 or even 30 years ago" is absolutely irrelevant, because we are specifically discussing Islamic Terrorism, and not past terror issues of IRA terror, Basque terror nor Palestinian nationalist terror which were prevalent in the 1970s.GreyShark (dibra) 05:55, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think the 2014 onwards is redundant, for instance in the german city of Duisburg, 4 individuals were arrested and convicted according to Der Spiegel. Thus, the 204 limit seems a bit artificial and we might as well change the scope to Islamic terrorism in Europe and it should include Russia. AadaamS (talk) 15:07, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I also think the 2014 cut-off largely redundant. I would favour 21st Century (which in practice means post-9/11). Though there may be a trend around 2014 for the instigator/inspirer to have switched from AQ to ISIS, and a later trend to 'inspired lone wolves' (rather than trained operatives). However there are dangers to connecting too much to ISIS. The article isn't called "ISIS-linked terrorism in Europe" and (even if we accepted ISIS claims of responsibility as proof of some connection to the event), there are events recorded here in which even that tenuous link to ISIS is missing, and others in which an explicit link to other orgs exists.


 * As regards geographical area, I personally think Turkey, Russia (and Eastern Europe) are distinct, however I seem to be in a minority about Russia. If the inclusion criteria were countries that were wholly, or mainly, in Europe, that would exclude Turkey, but I'm unsure as to whether Russia would qualify (what percentage of Russian Fed is now in Europe?). Pincrete (talk) 18:06, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

An additional source has been added. Scope: TompaDompa (talk) 15:03, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Academic?: Jihadi terrorism (in particular how it has been affected by ISIL) in Western Europe (explicitly "excluding Turkey and former Eastern Bloc states") from "the turn of 2013".
 * MI5 has a list of Islamic terrorist plots and they do not divide into before-2014 and after-2014. AadaamS (talk) 08:12, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

French riviera and London Mumbai plot
The French riviera plot was deleted, but I have restored it. The CNN article mentions an Ibrahim Boudina, an individual which is mentioned in [https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellule_terroriste_de_Cannes_-_Torcy#Ibrahim_Boudina this Wikipédia Français article. There are likely more sources out there in French so don't delete until further research is done. AadaamS (talk) 17:21, 27 March 2018 (UTC)


 * If I may hazard a guess, I'd say it was probably removed for predating the Jewish Museum of Belgium shooting (which is, according to some, the starting point for the subject of this article). TompaDompa (talk) 18:44, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * . If it needs to be called an "alleged" terror plot, it has no business being on the list. TompaDompa (talk) 19:19, 27 March 2018 (UTC)


 * On a related matter, how can this text be justified "Prior to this just two terror plots and one attack had occurred on European soil - London "Mumbai" plot in October 2013". The source repeatedly refers to the London "Mumbai" plot as "alleged" and my understanding is that the only person accused was found not guilty. What plot? If the source describes it as alleged where is the source to justify stating in WP voice that the plot was a fact? Pincrete (talk) 19:52, 27 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I've removed the opening para of the overview, the para that follows is a much better and more RS'd summary of the post-2014 situation IMO. Pincrete (talk) 19:59, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You haven't linked to any offical documents, reports or web pages where terror plots are listed though as far as I can see on this talk page. Do you have any recommendations perhaps for some French, German or Italian government agency where such information can be found? Deleting info is very easy compared to finding it. AadaamS (talk) 05:01, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Why would I want to go looking for plots? Some plots obviously go to court and the case is 'won' and they deserve inclusion. Periodically police etc issue statements of alleged plots that they have 'cracked', I'm personally very sceptical of such figures, since obviously the police would prosecute and/or attempt to get the persons expelled if their evidence was solid, however I would support brief inclusion of such claims, since the claim itself is notable. There is no possible justification for including a plot that has been 'thrown out of court', especially if its existence is framed in WP voice as a fact. Juries get to hear and weigh all the evidence, WP editors do not. Pincrete (talk) 09:13, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * all plots are alleged until the court decides the verdict; to the best of my understanding of French - in June 2017, the plotters got the guilty verdict and were sent to prison for prolonged periods . Correct me if i'm wrong.GreyShark (dibra) 06:42, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * you would perhaps be interested in improving this article by helping out with sourcing?The question should have been put more generally: Are you willing to help out with finding good sources for this article, on any area of it? Do you have any recommendations perhaps for some French, German or Italian government agency where such information can be found? Something similar to Europol's TE SAT reports? AadaamS (talk) 21:26, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * TESAT is the synopsis of EU info, it collates much of its data from individual govt sources. I don't quite understand why individual govt sources would be wanted in addition, since countries have their own articles in the main. As you see from this discussion, a problem that has bedevilled this article since its creation is defining what its purpose is. Personally, I would much rather see this article fulfilling an 'overview' function, with linking statistics, since most 'notable' incidents have their own articles. Pincrete (talk) 22:19, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Such sources could be used to provide a brief overview for each individual country in this article. Each country overview could then link to the national-level articles via the Main article template. It would then serve as a "top-level" article for the national-level articles. A list of inicdents should go somewhere, if not this article, then a linked article. AadaamS (talk) 05:04, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I found a a list of plots at the MI5 website, perhaps you would like to help go through it and add to the plots section? AadaamS (talk) 08:25, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Plot dates
It is very unclear what the "Date" column in the table for terrorist plots is supposed to represent. Right now, they're not chosen in a consistent manner. I personally think that the one that readers will be most interested in is the date the plot would've taken place, but that's not always known. When the arrests were made is better from a perspective of consistency, but it's not really accurate to refer to it as the plot's date. We also kind of need rough dates to be able to put the plots in chronological order (which is by far the best order to put them in, assuming we want a table at all – I think prose might be a better option in this case). I'm not sure what the best solution is – thoughts? TompaDompa (talk) 21:05, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * February 2014 – when the arrest was made (I think).
 * 2014 Norway terror threat: 24–31 July 2014 – when the security measures were in place.
 * 17 November 2015 – when the plot would've (presumably) taken place. I didn't find any arrests, but I didn't do a particularly thorough search.
 * 2015 Eschborn-Frankfurt City Loop: 1 May 2015 – when the plot would've (presumably) taken place.
 * Brussels New Year's Eve Grand Place terrorism plot: 27–28 December 2015 – when the arrests were made (the plot would've presumably taken place 31 December).
 * Munich New Year's Eve train stations bombing plot: 31 December 2015 – when the plot would've presumably taken place (no arrests).
 * 28 March 2016 – unclear. Arrests were made 24–27 March.
 * 2016 Düsseldorf terrorism plot: 2 June 2016 – when the arrests were made.
 * Notre Dame Cathedral bombing attempt: 4–8 September 2016 – from when the plot was uncovered until the arrests were made (I think; 8 September is not in the article).
 * 2016 Chemnitz terrorism plot: 8 October 2016 – when the plot became known to the public (arrests were made the following two days, 9–10 October).
 * 2016 Balkans terrorism plot: 17 November 2016 – unclear. When the last arrest was made (arrests were made 4–17 November)? The article itself says 12 November, which I think is when the plot would've (presumably) taken place...
 * May 2017 – when the arrests were made.


 * When the 'target' date is known, it could be used, otherwise month of arrest and use text to make clear chronology. What concerns me more is the number of 'plots' with no 'follow up' ie the story ends when arrests are made, with the reader not knowing if any convictions resulted. While that is legitimate (with the use of 'alleged') for recent events, it does not seem legitimate for older events. 2014 Norway terror threat, seems a case in point, was there anything other than suspicion of a plot? Pincrete (talk) 22:00, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the arrest date is the best option. Other dates of "presumed" target event is not always known.GreyShark (dibra) 07:35, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The arrest date is fine with me, in a sense it's the date when a plot is foiled. AadaamS (talk) 16:43, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Islamic terrorism which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 14:14, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 May 2018
I request changing Islamic terrorism to Islamist terrorism. Islamic is something associated with Islam, while Islamist is associated with radicalized Islamists. Altamimi579 (talk) 20:20, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Altamimi579, there have been several discussions (including one recently - see above), about making this change across the whole of WP. I agree that 'Islamist' is more accurate and more specific - the counter argument is that 'Islamic' is more commonly used (especially by news sources). I would certainly support such a change and wish you luck, but don't hold your breath on it getting widespread agreement easily. Pincrete (talk) 20:31, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Please also  see the previous discussions on this page. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:55, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 May 2018
User:Unknown4321unknown edited (16:01, 28 May 2018‎) the number of injured people from 512 to 139 without providing any sources. All the sources below state the number of injured as 512. Example BBC states: "bomber who killed the 22 and injured 512 at an Ariana Grande concert at Manchester Arena on 22 May". The Wikipedia article of Manchester Bombings has +800 injured.

MY SUGGESTION: Change the number of injured back to 512 and add the links below as sources for this number.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-manchester-42111239 http://theconversation.com/the-manchester-bombing-unknown-unknowns-and-hindsight-bias-88708 https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/government-not-pay-manchester-full-13950429 https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/police-reveal-170-children-were-11452374 https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/manchester-attack-latest-salman-abedi-hashem-abedi-arrest-warrant-libya-ariana-grande-a8032576.html https://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/terror-victims-mark-25-years-since-ira-attack-on-manchester-1-8275161 https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/extradition-request-for-hashem-abedi-brother-of-manchester-bomber-salman-rlcjgfsqs MayMay7 (talk) 16:06, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done L293D (☎ • ✎) 16:26, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 May 2018
Revert from edit (21:16, 30 May 2018) made by User:Lihaas to edit (17:21, 30 May 2018) by User:‎Gianluigi02.

User:Lihaas removed the whole Liege 2018 attack part by saying that "it's too early to tell" even tho the officials are already treating the attack as a terrorist murder. MayMay7 (talk) 08:13, 31 May 2018 (UTC)


 * What does "treating as" mean in this context? In a medical context, a physician stating "the chest pains are being treated as a myocardial infarction" or "we are treating the symptoms as pneumonia" would mean that it is unknown whether that is actually what they're dealing with, but they are taking the same actions as they would have if they had known for sure. TompaDompa (talk) 09:04, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

It appears that User:‎Gianluigi02 did the revert. Marked this request as answered. MayMay7 (talk) 12:57, 31 May 2018 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that officials are investigating whether it is terrorism .. local media are speculating as to whether the perp was converted/radicalised in prison and witnesses who say they heard an Islamic slogan. AFAIK, we don't as yet know for certain that the perp converted to Islam, though it is probable given what he said to the cleaner/hostage. So I agree with the edit -  "it's too early to tell" - we need official confirmation that this was Islamic-inspired terrorism, not simply speculation that it could be.Pincrete (talk) 14:14, 31 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Addendum. The source used (BBC), mentions the possibility of IS, but has the Belgian interior minister saying ""There are signs he was radicalised in prison, but is it that radicalisation which drove him to commit these acts?" Mr Jambon asked on RTL radio. "It could have been because he had nothing to look forward to, because he also killed someone the night before, the guy's psychology and the fact... he may have been on drugs." ..... ie we don't know yet what the motive was is what is being said by the highest Justice official in Belgium.Pincrete (talk) 14:25, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 June 2018
there is a "on march 2018" that should be "in March 2018" 104.35.236.49 (talk) 10:11, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Done TompaDompa (talk) 11:31, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 June 2018
on the 29th of may 2018 there was another terrorist attack in the Belgian city of Liège. A soon to be ex-prisoner stabbed 2 police agents, took their guns and killed them. He killed also a 22 year old student who was passing by in a car. After that he took a cleaning lady hostage in a nearby school before he was shot dead by the police. The night before he also killed an ex-inmate. HoornaertD (talk) 16:27, 5 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. This was discussed above in the edit request of 31 May. Official confirmation of Islamic-inspired terrorism is needed before this incident should be added here. &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 16:59, 5 June 2018 (UTC)


 * There is a great deal of speculation and suspicion that this was Islamist, but no official confirmation at this stage. Pincrete (talk) 18:51, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

revert by TompaDompa: removing Analysis
Academic Gilles Kepel is a reliable source when he talks about the UK and France in the Haaretz interview. Also Spain is mentioned: "Kepel considers Syrian-Spanish jihadi Abu Musab al-Suri a key figure for this third-generation, or 3G, jihadism." The added section was sourced to WP:RS and it is perfectly within the scope of this article to include an academic discussing the differences and similarities of French policy responses, since both countries are in Europe. If the issue is naming of the section or its placement, renaming or moving the sections is an alternative. AadaamS (talk) 20:20, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't say anything about Kepel not being a WP:RELIABLE source. I take issue with the section not making clear that what Kepel is discussing to is the situation in the UK, not Europe as a whole (though other countries are mentioned, the UK is the subject); on an article with a title like this, it's reasonable to assume that statements by scholars are about the whole region unless otherwise noted – if the article doesn't make it clear when they're not, it's misleading the reader. The section's phrasing also had major issues with expressing opinions as facts in violation of WP:NPOV and taking sides in a dispute, also in violation of WP:NPOV. The name of the section is inappropriate for what is essentially one scholar's personal opinion, and placing it right below the WP:LEAD above all other sections is WP:UNDUE. These are mostly surmountable problems, but they are serious enough to warrant removal until they're fixed. A section with scholars' and other experts' views on the subject matter is something we should want this article to contain, but we mustn't present an incomplete picture, per WP:WEIGHT: Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. TompaDompa (talk) 23:40, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The expert opinion of Kepel clearly pertained to the UK and France, there was no misleading. It is a discussion of two countries which have had a number of significant attacks. No other European countries have suffered more than France and Britain in the 2010s. The deleted statements by Gilles Kepel were not just "opinions" of "one scholar", it is expert opinion delivered by a qualified and merited expert on the subject. If NPOV and UNDUE was the issue, simply tag/move the section so it can be expanded by TompaDompa or other interested editors. Nobody ever said the removed section was "complete", that is an interpretation on the part of TompaDompa, but it was a start sourced to WP:RS and now there is nothing to build on. AadaamS (talk) 05:27, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm going to disagree on the clarity; the phrasing in the section made it seem like the mentions of France and the UK were examples (with Europe as the subject), whereas the source has the UK as the subject and uses France as an example. While it's true that Kepel's opinions are expert opinions, they're still one expert's opinions on a controversial subject where experts disagree with each other (clearly, as the source mentions Kepel disagreeing with Roy). As for completeness, that's required by WP:NPOV. I'd say talk page discussion is a good way to collect and expand material on scholarly viewpoints until it's of sufficient quality for inclusion on the article. For now, I think the most we can do with this material is to add something like:"Political scientist Olivier Roy argues that the majority of Islamic terrorists are radicals first and are drawn to fundamentalist Islam as a result, whereas fellow political scientist Gilles Kepel argues that terrorists are radicalized by Salafi ideology before choosing violence." to the "Overview" section. TompaDompa (talk) 08:02, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I have only a few seconds here, but broadly share Tompa's objections, particularly vis-a-vis two opinions about a narrow section of the topic area (France/UK). At the very least positioning and section headings/text should be clearer about what is being discussed. This is a problem related to having opted for such a broad geographic area with several distinct local histories. Pincrete (talk) 09:55, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Placing the analysis of Olivier Roy and Gilles Kepel on an equal footing would not be WP:NPOV because Kepel's view is also supported by the security service of Germany (Verfassungsschutz): Die salafistische Szene stellt ein wesentliches Rekrutierungsfeld für den Jihad dar. Fast ausnahmslos alle Personen mit Deutschlandbezug, die sich dem Jihad angeschlossen haben, standen zuvor mit der salafistischen Szene in Kontakt. AadaamS (talk) 10:59, 10 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Google translate: "The Salafist scene represents an essential recruitment field for jihad. Almost without exception, all persons with a German connection who have joined the Jihad had previously been in contact with the Salafist scene." Leaving aside the issue of what is meant here by 'Jihad' (becoming ideologically active, going to Syria or embarking on terrorist action in Europe). I don't see how this endorses anyones view except in the sense of 'the Salafist scene' being an important component, but what does it have to say about France or UK - ostensibly the focus of this content? I'm sorry but I fail to see the value of this material in an article that is ostensibly about the whole of Europe. Pincrete (talk) 14:11, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Using the Europe-as-a-whole argument isn't a reason to block writing about the situation of major countries of Europe. That's not how article scoping is meant to work. It's perfectly valid to have a summary about each country with Main article links. Which sources would you then suggest to improve the article, Pincrete? AadaamS (talk) 05:19, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * IMO this list article's function is to provide a geographical overview. Every major country has sub-articles, in addition to general articles (on IS, Is ter, etc). The most useful function it fulfils is annual overview - and no reason why it should not chart broad trends (tendency to lone wolves, ambiguities of Is inspired etc). Experience may have made me jaded on this, but this article has a long history of OR and SYNTH, the most common form of which is to try to extrapolate the general from the particular. Pincrete (talk) 08:41, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I have to agree with User:AadaamS on this one. Gilles Kepel is well known academic that has done his life work on Islam in the West and particularly on militant and political Islam. He's an export on the field and his analysis should be included as long as it's sourced reliably.

I also have to add that this article has a history of "watering down" facts and research so a removal of well sourced analysis on the Islamic terrorism in Europe is not a knew thing. There seems to be a group of editors that want to keep this article free of analysis and background information. However I think it's very VERY important that we should include analysis and research as long as it's sourced properly. I would go even as far as make a new section dedicated for analysis, background and published research.

TL;DR I have to agree with User:AadaamS that his well sourced edit (that got randomly reverted by TompaDompa) should be included in the article. MayMay7 (talk) 12:12, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No one's post above is longer than two short paragraphs, so I'm sorry that you need to invoke WP:TLDR. If you had read you would see that no one disputes that Kepel is an authority on his subject - the discussion is about whether and how and where to place content - some of which is about a specific disagreement between him and another academic - and which is mainly about UK-France, in an article ostensibly about the whole continent. Being a RS doesn't automatically mean anything Kepel has written goes into 'pole position' on this article. I make no secret of the fact that I believe this article should confine itself to an 'overview', mainly concerned with statistical information, broad tends and a 'summary' list of events, that's because experience has taught me that any other route tends to lead to a less coherent article. Pincrete (talk) 14:31, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Pincrete the 'whole continent' argument would be helped if even one source having such analysis was presented to support it. Islamic terorism is a multinational pheonomenon, this is the perfect article to present similarities and contrasts between countries of the phenomenon. Also the 'section placement' argument is not a weighty one since the section was deleted, not moved & tagged. The 'coherence' problem has a solution which is cleaning up, not deletion. Deletion is appropriate for inaccurate or unsourced information, this was neither. AadaamS (talk) 16:56, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 June 2018
Change "2017 Turku stabbing" to "2017 Turku terror attack".

This was officially judged to be a terrorist attack by Finnish court earlier today. The dedicated English language page and the Finnish page have already been changed but the old name (2017 Turku stabbing) still remains in this list. MayMay7 (talk) 16:16, 15 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: The page was moved with a move discussion, and the page move was reverted (by me). "Terror attack" also doesn't mean anything ("terror" and "terrorist" are not interchangeable), so the appropriate title would if anything be 2017 Turku terrorist attack. TompaDompa (talk) 17:55, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Recent changes to the lead
Regarding this edit (which I initially intended to revert), by user:Wq639 I have a number of concerns.

The increase of attacks in 2014 was mainly caused by the Islamic State's (ISIL/ISIS) takeover of Mosul in Iraq during its offensive in June 2014, and declaration of a caliphate. The group subsequently spread their ideology and propaganda, telling followers to mount attacks abroad. Although the terror campaign has been mostly caused by ISIL operatives, operatives of the Al-Qaeda group as well as lone wolves linked to their ideologies have also been responsible for attacks.

Firstly, the source given (1) says nothing about the attacks being caused by Mosul or the caliphate AFAI can see - it simply says attacks had been made since Jan 2014 - the source is mainly about IS trying to 'hit back' due to its territory shrinking in 2015.

Secondly, how can 2015 sources possibly endorse the final sentence characterising who has executed most of the attacks - I haven't done the maths but would suspect that lone wolves now constitute the majority.

Since we lack a sound summary in the lead, I am bringing the text here to see if anything can be rescued, since the text appears to form a possible framework for such a summary. Pincrete (talk) 15:51, 22 June 2018 (UTC)