Talk:Islamic terrorism in Europe/Archive 8

Scope of article
For quite a while the opening of the lead has read "Since 2014, 480 people have been killed in Europe ....". Is there an alternative way of phrasing this .... numbers are problematic to source - need constant updating, and often end up with someone 'doing the maths', since no body produces reliable data for our geographic area? Pincrete (talk) 16:52, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Europol's figures for 2014-2017 (respectively: 4, 150, 135, and 62) add up to 351. I think that's the best we're going to get. I suggest either going with a "more than" phrasing or removing the number entirely. TompaDompa (talk) 17:04, 22 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Europol of course ain't Europe - I wouldn't object to using their figures, but others might think the use misleading. I was hoping someone could come up with a wording which avoids 'vagaries' like 'numerous'. Pincrete (talk) 17:15, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, the scope comes back to haunt us yet again. Perhaps we should focus all our attention and efforts on fixing the scope? TompaDompa (talk) 18:23, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Braver men than I have tried! Sound idea, but I'm not sure I have the stomach. Pincrete (talk) 19:41, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I the number of people killed altogether. TompaDompa (talk) 23:55, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Is it the geographical or chronological scope that's up for discussion, or both? AadaamS (talk) 08:10, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Both I would say, the year isn't particularly a significant milestone - the year wasn't part of the original title, but was included for pragmatic reasons because all the attacks listed were after that date and the original title was ill-defined and OR-ish. The geographical scope has never made huge sense in my opinion - Russia and Turkey not fitting into the W. European political or historical models - and tending to not be included in either stats or analyses. Pincrete (talk) 09:21, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Which political or historical models are you referring to and how do they pertain to terrorism in Europe? For instance, taking a look 50 years back in time, were there any jihadi terrorist attacks in Europe back then? AadaamS (talk) 09:36, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * IMO the 2014 year doesn't strike me as a natural limit, since at least two large-scale Islamic terrorist attacks in Europe happened earlier, with the Madrid train bombings and the 2005 attacks on public transport in London. AadaamS (talk) 11:44, 23 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't understand the final question, but I think it only meaningful to discuss 'Islamist violence' from a date at which the term came into general currency (Madrid trains?). That would not necessarily preclude brief 'back story' such as Palestinian-related events, some of which may be seen as being 'tinged with' Islamism - but which are broadly seen as not Islamist in nature. We get very much into WP:OR or fringe territory if we try to characterise events 50 years ago as 'jihadi'.


 * I'm not going to get into complicated discussions about Russia or Turkey, but most of the W. European targets have similar values and political systems, many have colonial history - but most pragmatically of all, sources tend to discuss the topic broadly as W. Europe, or as W. Europe and liberal democracies. Very few discuss geographical Europe. There are anomalies in any definition of scope - I would rather minimise those anomalies AFAP.


 * Central Europe and Greece have so far been spared any major incidents, so, at present, whether they are within the scope is academic.Pincrete (talk) 12:03, 23 June 2018 (UTC)


 * As it stands, (the scope of) this article is in violation of the guideline WP:N (specifically WP:LISTN, as it is not the case that [the topic] has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources) and consequently the policy WP:NOT (specifically WP:NOT, because of the WP:OR combination of timeframe, type of event, and geography). TompaDompa (talk) 15:08, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Please suggest a new scope, the deficiencies of the current scope has been pointed out on many occasions already. Is the intent to have the article completely deleted? The many deletions in this article provides a hint. The article has so many sources that it's likely to survive an AfD though. AadaamS (talk) 19:08, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * There isn't a hope in hell of it being deleted - and I don't think TD intended that.Pincrete (talk) 20:31, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

No, it's not my intention to have the article deleted. There was an AfD which I commented on, but neither supported nor opposed. on the scope. I then the RfC with my views on what the scope should be, going by WP:RELIABLE sources. When without any clear WP:CONSENSUS,  about how to fix the scope. back in March of this year, and this time I also mentioned the possibility of merging the contents of this article into other articles whose scopes are well-defined if we cannot fix this one. My intention is to fix this article, not having it deleted. If one looks at my edit history in general, one notices that my edits have a tendency to reduce the article size – this is because I often find that articles can be improved by removing things such as bloat, off-topic content, or content that fails verification. Removal of content from articles should not be construed as a desire to remove the articles themselves.

With regards to suggested new scopes: I proposed based on my review of WP:RELIABLE sources that the geographic scope should be the West, though I did not have any good suggestion for the timeframe. However, in I suggested "the 2010s" as an obviously arbitrary timeframe. , one of the possibilities I mentioned for the timeframe was "during the Syrian Civil War", though when I later looked into it more closely, that did not emerge as one frequently used by WP:RELIABLE sources. In summary, the best suggestion for a scope I have come up with so far is Islamic terrorism in the West in the 2010s (where "Islamic" vs. "Islamist" vs. "Jihadist" is more a question of terminology than one of scope). TompaDompa (talk) 01:20, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * TD: I support "the West" scope suggested by Hegghammer & Nesser. Hegghammer is an expert AFAIK. General opinion: I disagree that individual countries should be banned from all mention in this article, a brief overview should be provided for each of the major participating/targeted countries but the bulk of that info should go to articles connected with Main article links. AadaamS (talk) 07:15, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, despite the article being named Islamic terrorism in Europe this article doesn't actually provide any information on how or why these terrorist acts in Europe are Islamic in the first place. AadaamS (talk) 08:46, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Mmmm?? Changing from Europe to 'the West' seems a big leap - I was thinking W. Europe - however precisely defined. That would mainly remove Rus/Turk from our current content. 'Islamic' is not explained, but we link to I-t. What I think would be good (once scope is established) is to state OUR criteria in the lead (that govt or similar authority has described it as I-t or close synonym) and to distinguish from terrorism related to Muslims - eg PLO. I don't see the year being a problem, since to the best of my knowledge, no events in Europe prior to around 2004 (Madrid) - have been generally described by sources as I-t.Pincrete (talk) 10:51, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed the scope could be widened as well as shrunk while we're at it. Hegghammer & Nesser state "the West". My own take on the issue: ISIS and other violent groups, do they specifically call for attacks against W Europe only, or do they call for attacks against "the West"? Attacks have happened in the US, Canada and Australia as well. It is also true that not all European countries have suffered attacks, Europol notes this in their TE SAT 2018. Yes, they are labelled as Islamist attacks that's fine and good, but the article still does nothing to explain why jihadist violence happens in Europe. Has alla analysis of the causes been deleted from the article? AadaamS (talk) 16:24, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Using "the West" would be a fairly big change, but it's what most accurately reflects the WP:RELIABLE sources I've seen. Western Europe would definitely be an improvement compared to the current geographic scope, however. Regardless of which we use, we need to use a clearly defined region from the beginning, so we don't get caught up in arguments about whether a certain event should be included or not further down the line. I completely agree about putting the inclusion criteria in the WP:LEAD, once they're established (and I agree that they should be strict – speculations about perpetrators' motives abound, and investigations into whether something was Islamic terrorism are often misconstrued as confirmation that it was). As for the timeframe, most WP:RELIABLE sources agree that there was a qualitative shift at some point during the current decade (though there's not much agreement about when more specifically that was). TompaDompa (talk) 17:11, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * AadaamS, the problem I see about focusing too much on groups is that for many recent incidents - it is very uncertain whether any group inspired/ordered the event. Claims of responsibility are taken with several large pinches of salt. If I'm still up to date, the 2017 Westminster attack, the police concluded that they could find no reason - none of the usual radicalisation signs, no compromising internet history or similar - but they still believed it was 'Islamist' in nature. Last I heard, it was still unclear who 'inspired' the Manchester Arena bombing. AFAIK no specific calls have come for attacks in Europe - only generic calls to target 'home' countries.
 * Analysis to my mind has to start with establishing generally agreed (among sources) patterns over the time period - since this is a summary/list article. Much of what has gone into the article as 'analysis' in the past, hasn't fitted that bill. Pincrete (talk) 18:25, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * If sources don't agree we can present the major viewpoints. Using sources that disagree with each other shouldn't be taken as a reason to delete everything or write nothing at all. Different expert view should be given due weight. AadaamS (talk) 18:57, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course, but we also need to recognise that the first duty is to present a coherent 'overview' of events, stats and trends - including key events, the declaration of the Caliphate, online radicalisation, the 'Syria effect', who are the perps etc, most of which are missing at present. IMO it is inevitable that such coverage will be brief and have to stick to the main 'received opinion' and link for further exposition. This article used to be a gigantic mess of random factoids and a great deal of WP:OR and a continuing problem is lack of 'update' (what happened when this or that went to court?). Pincrete (talk) 21:14, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Any Wikipedia article is a work in progress and it will never be perfect. If perfection is aimed for, no article could ever be created because as far as I know every editor on this article is an amateur. A decentralized multi-actor and multinational terorrist campaign may, by the very way it's structured (to avoid detection by security agencies - there have been no more 9/11 attacks), defy attempts at "coherence". AadaamS (talk) 05:47, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the coherence of the article - not the coherence of the groups responsible. I think everyone would agree that this form of terrorism lacks the coherence of objective, motive or organisation displayed by 'traditional' campaigns, such as those relating to N.Ireland/Basque seperatism, even those related to Isr-Pal.


 * Look, we can go round and round in circles in abstract conversations about what (in general) should or should not be in the article - in the last resort we all make judgements as to whether particular content is a net + or -, not only whether it is WP:V, but whether it is giving due weight and adds to clarity. That is a much more productive route - does this or that particular content benefit the article, which is a subject we can all legitimately hold different opinions on. To an extent this is related to scope, and my view is that the article's primary purpose is to present a coherent overview. That would be the strategy on any other article covering a broad topic area such as this one. There are seperate articles on all the main subjects. Pincrete (talk) 10:19, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the High-speed rail could provide a practical starting point. First a History section, then comparisons with other modes of transport, then notable accidents, then a Markets section which list the major networks with Main article links to the separate articles. If there are separate articles which cover each countries, I think something similar would be good for this article. That makes it clear this article delegates full information on individual countries and terrorist movements/organisations to other standalone articles. Pincrete if there are other "Overview" articles that you think this article should be modelled on, please link them. AadaamS (talk) 21:00, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * If you find the analogy with High-speed rail useful, by all means work with it - frankly it's lost on me, I see no value in adopting completely un-analogous models or arguing about whether the subject matter is more like the history of the internal combustion engine or list of bird species in Australasia.


 * What we have is a list (several lists), that is what we have been working with since it was created. If scope alters to include events before 2014, those lists will lengthen. Some editors have been doing valuable work adding year summaries etc. Whatever extra analysis or more detailed info could go in is going to be solved by proposing text and normal discussion on talk - not abstract argument. Pincrete (talk) 01:52, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The analogy is adopt a structure to this article to provide the overview. If you don't think the HSR article provides a good template for an overview, please point out a good article that does. Give an example. Per my view is that the article's primary purpose is to present a coherent overview, it cannot mean that the "WP:OWN-er" has an idea about what what an overview is, what it should contain and then proceeds to enforce that idea with deletions. This is not a list article. This is an article that has lists, that's something else. AadaamS (talk) 05:17, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * As it happens, many of the terrorism in European country X follow similar structures. Some are called lists - some are not, but when a large percentage of their content is 'listy', they often limit the text to brief 'overviews'. Unless you are proposing to lessen the list element, that is what we work with and try to enhance by giving context. I have no fixed idea about what additional material should be included. Many individual ideas - such as clear definitional statements on what our inclusion criteria are at the head of relevant sections, broad trends over time (such as those I suggested above) would be useful IMO and are currently missing - or implied - rather than stated. After that, I have no fixed ideas about whether/what additional content should be included - but they should obviously attempt to be proportionate to the breadth of the topic area and breadth of coverage in sources.


 * Am I accused of behaving as the owner of this article? RfC's exist to establish agreement where editors are unable to agree on specific content. ANI's exist to deal with unreasonable behaviour - generalised accusations and abstract discussions do not get anyone anywhere and waste time. Pincrete (talk) 10:51, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * This is not a list article. This is an article that has lists, that's something else. I'm not sure what you're trying to say. This article is as much a WP:Stand-alone list as List of highest-grossing films, Orders of magnitude (area), and Timeline of space exploration. TompaDompa (talk) 12:27, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

If this for all intents and purposes going to be enforced as a list article, then it should be renamed. AadaamS (talk) 15:44, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It is time it is explicitly stated what this article is going to be. My interpretation of the implied consensus between TD and Pincrete is that the article should remain as-is: An Overview section at the top and then a couple of lists and nothing else (other material gets deleted). No analysis of individual countries and no analysis of the ideological background for these attacks (where sections & paragraphs containing this have been commenced, they have been deleted as irrelevant, out of scope or for other reasons not good enough). AadaamS (talk) 05:25, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * As regards adding list to the title I am neutral - there are other listy articles, not called 'list' and 'list' articles with sectional text - I don't know policy on that, but personally I am neutral. It is not that I have any fixed idea about what else (apart from list and year summaries) should be included. It is more that material offered in the past has not attempted to be proportionate to the topic. Sections on 'main' countries or main trends or main methods etc are all potentially beneficial. I don't think I've ever said that non-summary info should be deleted, that's turning the logic on its hesd, it's more that 'overview' is the principal function IMO. Pincrete (talk) 09:56, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It's implied that non-summary info does not belong in the article, if it is deleted rather than improved with better sources. Actions are a form of communication. The article should be renamed a "list" since that's what the article has been trimmed down to. Overview isn't the principal function of this article, it's the only function. AadaamS (talk) 16:18, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Rename the article to List-of
The article should be renamed to List of Islamic terrorist attacks in Europe. TompaDompa and Pincrete have made the argument that this article is a list in all but name, then the name should reflect this. The article has also been trimmed down to nothing but a very brief "Overvew" section plus some lists. AadaamS (talk) 06:17, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No one has made THAT argument. The argument is that the main purpose is to summarise the whole topic area of Is Ter in Europe (in the 2014-now phase) and therefore any additional content needs to consider the WEIGHT given by the balance of sources and the WEIGHT in proportion to the whole of Europe (or at least those countries affected). The list element has always been a major component of this article and no one seems to want to lose that. I am neutral as to whether it should/needs to have 'list' added to the title, many similar articles are 'listy', but not called 'list'. Pincrete (talk) 11:44, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not arguing to "lose" the list element, I have switched opinion into the opposite: reinforcing the list aspect as both Pincrete and TompaDompa has argued that this article is very listy. Pincrete has argued that this article is listy, because the content of this article should be limited because other listy articles often limit the text to brief 'overviews'. The argument has also been made both implicitly (by deletions), since the article has been trimmed down to be Overview section + lists only. TompaDompa has specifically written This article is as much a WP:Stand-alone list as ... and a few list articles follow. AadaamS (talk) 15:09, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, it is rated "List-class" by several WP:WikiProjects. It has been since . It also fits the description on WP:Stand-alone lists. However, I don't see the benefit in renaming it. That just seems like a step towards the article being deleted as a WP:POVFORK of List of Islamist terrorist attacks to me. TompaDompa (talk) 17:00, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * So the consensus between me, Pincrete and TompaDompa is that this article is in fact, a list article. Why not make it official by renaming it? What's the benefit in a name that misleads editors? The benefit in renaming this article would be that editors would not be tempted to add material which doesn't fit the "list format". That saves times both for those editors and those who police this article. A POVFORK won't prevail since there are sources to satisfy "jihadist attacks in Europe" per the WP:GNG. AadaamS (talk) 22:39, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

It's not a question of WP:CONSENSUS – this is a list article because it's composed of embedded lists (see WP:Stand-alone lists). List articles don't need to be called "list of [...]", nor do they need to be composed solely of lists to the exclusion of prose (neither is true of 89th Academy Awards).

There's also the issue that this article isn't only about the attacks – there's a list of plots and suspected plots and a list of counter-terrorism operations as well.

I don't agree that the current title is misleading because it doesn't contain the word "list”. I also don't agree that we should try to dissuade editors from adding non-list material. Consequently, I don't agree that the title should be changed. TompaDompa (talk) 05:57, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Could we then agree on what material is allowed to be added to this article? There seems to be a strong opinion on what can be deleted (because it is deleted), but vagueness on what can be added. Please give suggestions. I want to contribute to this article as in adding information but I won't take the time until I know what is going to be allowed by TD and Pincrete.
 * editors other than you and Pincrete are already dissuaded if you look into the history over the last few weeks. What kind of non-list material do you think could be added? Please be specific. I'm not going to even bother finding sources only to have it deleted on technicalities of "not belonging in a list" or "out of scope". AadaamS (talk) 08:42, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * when you write needs to consider the WEIGHT given by the balance of sources and the WEIGHT in proportion to the whole of Europe - which sources did you have in mind when you wrote this? Please be specific. AadaamS (talk) 08:42, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Look further up, there have been suggestions. No I am not going to precisely define what additional material can be added, nor the sources that should be used because it would be self-evident nonsense to do so. I endorse what TD says about renaming. There is no need IMO, but if you wish to start a move discussion, do so. This is all such a waste of time IMO. Pincrete (talk) 09:43, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't think there's any need to rename the article as a list as there's many articles on Wikipedia that act and function like a list but are not fully/only a list and thus don't have a list in their name.

User:Pincrete brought up the (2014–present) part of the title and I realized that the graph about the jihadist arrests at the end of the article should be brought to the top. The graph is well sourced (Europol) and it would provide a good overview for the reader why this article focuses on 2014-present. I think it would make it easier for a reader to see why this article focuses on terrorism after 2014. The current image (Memorial to the people killed in the January 2015 Île-de-France attacks) doesn't really give any additional information about the article and could thus be removed or moved to the bottom. Thoughts? MayMay7 (talk) 19:41, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Since the graph has nothing to do with the reason 2014 was chosen, it would only serve as a post-hoc rationalization of an arbitrary and WP:OR choice. The number of arrests is also not the most relevant metric; a better option would be number of attacks or number of deaths, shown in the table below. Note, however, that both the number of attacks and the number of deaths was higher in 2012 than in 2014, further highlighting that 2014 was an arbitrary choice. I do agree that the current image doesn't add much and can be removed, however. TompaDompa (talk) 23:27, 13 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree with both points, namely that the number of arrests is not the most critical thing and that posting the chart at the head of the article would be a (false) attempt to justify the year retrospectively. Pincrete (talk) 07:57, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

think tank
Per this edit. The BBC simply calls them by name: According to estimates from the International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation and Political Violence, with no qualifier. Do Wikipedia editors know something the BBC doesn't? If they indeed are a "think-tank", please WP:V verify this with WP:RS. AadaamS (talk) 06:56, 15 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't see a need for this to be stated by the source as this is simply a clarifier - not every UK source is going to say that T May is British PM, buy we may feel the need to clarify to the reader. Whether the clarifier is necessary (since it is linked), I am neutral about.Pincrete (talk) 08:48, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Since my addition wasn't immediately deleted outright, that's really the best I can hope for at this stage. AadaamS (talk) 18:32, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Terrorist plots
I've just restored two 'plots'. I agree we should exclude trivial or 'tentative' plots, however when there are major-ish events I think that we should include - as long as our text accurately reflects the degree to which the plot is alleged/proven. I also think that it would be good to add some intro text 'defining' what the plot section is (both plots and significant alleged plots).

Many of the 'plots' we will never know how substantial the threat was (unless the case goes to court for that specific crime). We will never know whether some of these incidents were simply errors of judgement, bad intelligence or real threats - however so long as the text is an accurate reflection of what is known, I don't see the problem in including them. Pincrete (talk) 00:34, 26 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I disagree; false positives are far worse than false negatives. I do agree that it would be good to add an explanation of what the section is, however. TompaDompa (talk) 00:53, 26 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I think being clear - and stating explicitly - what our criteria are is as important as whether example X or Y is included. Events like the 'Norway plot' are as uncertain as these two sports cancellations - all we can be certain of in all 3 is suspicion of plot leading to significant police precautions. The London man who had discussed (online) killing D Cameron, Queen Liz and half of N. London was only charged with trying to go to Syria - his 'plots' were never tried, presumably as there wasn't a hope in hell of him being found guilty of 'conspiracy to commit' on such thin evidence. I think we are agreed that clarity is more important than example X or Y. Pincrete (talk) 01:18, 26 June 2018 (UTC)


 * We need to have clearly defined inclusion criteria. One thing that should be non-negotiable is the characterization of a plot as Islamic terrorism being attributed and referenced. As for what does or does not count as a plot, we must comply with WP:BLPCRIME, which says For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. In other words, we can't classify something as an Islamic terrorist plot if there is at least one suspect and nobody has been convicted of a terrorist crime, because that would be implying that the suspects are guilty of terrorist crimes they haven't been convicted of. If, on the other hand, at least one suspect is convicted of a terrorist crime, the event has been ruled a terrorist plot by a court of law. Those are completely clear-cut criteria. The only problem is that for some events, there are no suspects. I'm not sure what to do with those cases. TompaDompa (talk) 00:44, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * We do need referencing. We do not need a conviction. If we have strong, non-tabloid, RSes reporting an incident as Islamic terror and we do not name the BLP(s) involved - it should be sufficient for inclusion.Icewhiz (talk) 11:30, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that a conviction is not essential - some of the biggest operations listed currently resulted in no arrests or convictions AFAIK. We will never know in some instances whether police action prevented a serious incident, or was simply bad intelligence. However text in the opening of this section should make clear what inclusion criteria are. The section is called 'plots', not 'alleged plots', and for reasons of readability, (avoiding multiple 'alleged') as much as accuracy, simply arguing that police claimed to have uncovered a plot - that is good enough - regardless of whether any convictions or other actions resulted, is, IMO not good enough. I don't see a clear objective set of criteria, but agree with TD that simply listing every event that police claimed at some stage was a plot, is a valueless, uninformative exercise. Pincrete (talk) 12:16, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You mean like the case of the 2016 Düsseldorf terrorism plot, where we have no conviction but Europol classified the event as jihadist terrorism? That's not a problem as Wikipedia is not implying that the suspects are guilty of terrorist crimes by including the event in a list of Islamic terrorist plots. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear. TompaDompa (talk) 12:27, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

. Keep in mind that this is descriptive, not prescriptive. Thoughts? TompaDompa (talk) 15:36, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Opposed - as law enforcement classification is irrelevant and varies by country - the question is how relevant RS - which may be academic - classify the event.Icewhiz (talk) 16:14, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * 'Official' bodies such as Europol are included in that classification. Many minor incidents are not mentioned in any academic sources and I cannot imagine a situation where a RS does more than speculate that an event may be terrorist in nature - when law authorities have not done so. Yes, what qualifies as terrorism varies slightly from country to country, but so do definitions of murder or fraud. Pincrete (talk) 18:03, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * TD's edit was completely meta, that is information-about-the-article, not information-about-the-subject. As such, not really a contribution to the informational content of the article. At this stage we should primarily focus on making the article more informative to the interested reader. The article still lacks all information about why these terrorist attacks are happening. 1Kwords (talk) 19:18, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I personally think fixing the scope should take precedence over being more informative. One reason is that I generally think problems regarding what is on an article are more important/urgent than problems regarding what is not on the article (I have a more "remove bad things" approach to improving articles than a "add good things" one), but the main reason is that I consider the scope to be the primary problem with this article from which a lot of the other problems stem. TompaDompa (talk) 23:20, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The meta edit I considered bad, so I deleted it. It's just I don't think that deletion should be used to the exclusion of everything else. Once upon a time I was a deletionist, but I got over it. 1Kwords (talk) 07:26, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorting out the why attacks are happening could help figuring out what the scope should be. The "why" of the attacks is also the "why" there is an article. 1Kwords (talk) 07:26, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Also I used to enjoy adding tags to articles ... now I mostly add them to articles where I don't have good background knowledge to find the sources, or the interest. This change was prompted by the Tag bombing essay and I took the "Improve it yourself" thing to heart. Adding tags does not actually fix the article. 1Kwords (talk) 17:27, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Re-categorizing information
when WP:V verified information is deleted from the article, please add to the relevant article & section in the future. The information deleted in this edit fits perfectly well in Terrorism in the United Kingdom article and I have added it there, but it's better if deletions are done in a more constructive manner. 1Kwords (talk) 19:04, 23 June 2018 (UTC)


 * 1Kwords, strangely enough, I didn't add the material to UK Terrorism - that's because I didn't think it was very relevant there either (you might lose your passport if you're caught playing with bombs?).


 * I DID check that the content was on the British nationality law article - it is, with a much fuller account of these measures.


 * I also checked that the content matched the text - it DIDN"T, it referred to '150 suspected jihadists and criminals', not '150 jihadists', with not the slightest indication of how many of the 150 were terrorist related. It was not WP:V verified information as you describe it, it was vague information carelessly transcribed so as to substantially alter the meaning.


 * If you had been following the fallout from the recent Windrush scandal, you would know that the UK govt doesn't even know how many people it has removed rights from while they were out of the country, and has taken away residency rights because of the simplest error having been made on people's tax returns - by their accountants. Not all criminals are jihadists - some people just break laws.


 * Stones and glasshouses come to mind for some reason. Pincrete (talk) 20:28, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The assertion that all citizenships were wrongfully stripped does not hold up to statements hold up to available sources. Instead of blanket deletion, perhaps improvement could be adopted. 1Kwords (talk) 06:06, 11 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Who claimed that ANY citizenships were WRONGLY stripped? My claim was that the source used did not refer to "150 Jihadists" and that the information inserted was simply factually wrong. Pincrete (talk) 07:37, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Response to terrorism?
Frankly, I can't see the advantage of renaming this section. Response sections in terrorism articles are usually of the "Mrs May/Merkel Mr Trump sent his condolences" kind. "Counter-terrorism operations" may not be perfect since half the content is arrest figures - but at least it isn't vague.

btw, which material do you think has been wrongly deleted from that section? Using edit reasons to make vague aspersions about unnamed editors is also pretty unconstructive! Pincrete (talk) 18:41, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The EU dhas a webpage named Response to foreign terrorist fighters and recent terrorist attacks in Europe which groups different sorts of responses, but not "condolences by Donald Duck". All the best, 1Kwords (talk) 15:09, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Brief reply, I shall be 'out of action' on WP for about 2.5 wks. Pincrete (talk) 16:54, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for the heads up. My ambition is likewise to be less active on enWP. All the best, 19:32, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

the recent revert & sources on Italian plots
Hi, per this revert, you are basically forced to monitor news about the Amsterdam terror attack until state prosecutors or police state this is a Jihadist/Islamist attack. The editors who (have reverted or will revert) your edits won't add this information to the page later. There's not a lot to do about that since this page is patrolled several times per day. Also, your user name suggests you know Italian, I wonder if you have any sources for terrorist plots that have been stopped by police, or happened, in Italy? 1Kwords (talk) 14:41, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Louvre attack February 3rd
You can add this one as well Louvre machete attack. Histogenea22 (talk) 12:26, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It was removed . The reason was Rm Louvre -- pls see Talk:Louvre_machete_attack. TompaDompa (talk) 13:36, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Have you read all new edits to the article since his comment on October 29th? Histogenea22 (talk) 14:10, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I removed the categories again: diff. They are not supported by the article copy. --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:20, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Gambian link
change ((Gambian)) to ((The Gambia|Gambian))
 * Yes check.svg Done, thanks! &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 15:05, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Plot March 2016, France
"In March a French national was arrested in the Argenteuil suburb of Paris, in what was believed to be the advanced stages of preparation for a terrorist attack. The arrested individual was believed to be part of a terrorist network that planned to commit an attack in France. The suspect had already been found guilty in absentia by a Belgian court and sentenced to 10 years in prison for ties to a jihadist network in 2015. Police seized 2 kilograms of the explosive TATP and a Kalashnikov rifle, and also found materials to make more explosives." Source: Europol, Tesat, 2017, p. 25. Histogenea22 (talk) 15:10, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * This was in 2016, right? TE SAT from 2017 deals with events in 2016. There are plenty of sources on Reda Kriket's arrest. another source. I haven't found any source on a court sentence yet. Apparently there was a connection to Salah Abdeslam and apparently Kriket had a connection to convicted jihadi recruiter Khalid Zerkani who who was active in Molenbeek and sent recruits to join the Syrian conflict. That could be the topic of a standalone article. 1Kwords (talk) 19:59, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes 2016, I've corrected it. I find a good overview of all Islamic terrorist attacks more important than indivudual articles, so I won't focus on that myself. Histogenea22 (talk) 20:05, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Good it was clarified. Agreed that a good overview are more important than standalone articles. Let's see what happens with convictions in this case. 1Kwords (talk) 20:11, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Jihadist attack in the Uk on August 25 2017
"On 25 August three police officers suffered injuries, while arresting a 26-year-old man in possession of a sword in a car outside Buckingham Palace in central London (UK), reportedly shouting “Allahu Akbar”. The attack remains unclaimed." Source: Europol yearly report, page 24. Histogenea22 (talk) 13:05, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * An article about this was recently deleted note the use of incident because British police (I believe) never used the word attack. Does Europol explicitly describe this incident as terrrorist? As Islamist? I haven't checked recently but last I heard, any charges against the man arrested were neither. Pincrete (talk) 18:44, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Page 23 of the report starts with a discription of the 10 jihadist attacks with fatalities which continues onto page 24. Under these ten attacks, 5 addtional jihadist attacks are discribed that only caused injurments. "In addition people were injured in the following attacks in 2017" But that list is incomplete. These five just seem to serve as examples. That whole chapter is about jihadist terrorism only Histogenea22 (talk) 19:00, 7 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Short reply - no, we cannot infer from its presence in the Is ter section of Tesat that the incident was an Is ter plot - it could simply be background info because it received coverage in UK press (coming shortly after very serious incidents at Westminster, Manchester Arena and London Bridge - it was covered disproportionately to its importance).


 * Longer answer - most of the coverage of this incident was 'comic relief'. The fuller story is that a seemingly Walter Mitty-ish individual probably set out to commit some kind of attack, he was an Uber driver who decided to attack Windsor Castle. He fed 'Windsor Castle' into his satnav, but it led him to a pub of that name in Windsor, (pretty stupid as Windsor is littered with signs pointing to the Castle). He then drove the 50-ish miles back to London in the middle of the night and went to Buck. palace, drove his car fairly quickly at a parked police van, but braked. 3 Police got out of the van to ask what he was doing (he had stopped in an area where parking was not allowed and had driven strangely), he reached for what was described as a "4ft Samurai sword" which was in the passenger seat well. Police then pepper sprayed him and pulled him out of the car - during which they sustained minor injuries (scratches). After the incident, police investigated whether ha had had an Islamic/terrorist motive, but last I heard, there had been neither charge nor conclusion.


 * If he is charged with a 'terrorist plot' charge - it can go in this list, if he isn't it can't. If he is found guilty of such a charge, it can stay in the list, otherwise again, it can't. He may be so charged, or it may be decided that there is no evidence and he is simply charged with resisting arrest and told to behave in future. For what it is worth, my brother was many years ago a policeman attached to Buck Pal, incidents as potty as this were an almost nightly occurence - for some reason Buck Pal at night is a magnet for strange people. Pincrete (talk) 20:54, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Terrorist attack on December 6th 2015 in the UK
"On 6 December, a man was arrested by police after stabbing three people at a London Underground station. One victim suffered serious injuries. A witness claimed that the suspect screamed ‘this is for Syria’." Source: Europol, Tesat, 2016, p. 23. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Histogenea22 (talk • contribs) 14:02, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * 2015 Leytonstone tube station attack, ruled by UK police to be neither terrorist nor 'Islamic' (mental illness). Removed from this list some years ago. Pincrete (talk) 19:22, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * "We have in place a set of criteria - namely that recognised local authority - or Europol - should refer to an act as an act of Islamic terrorism (or close synonym - Islamist/Jihadist etc). This is precisely to avoid editors assessing on available evidence" ~ Pincrete, 6 September 2018. Histogenea22 (talk) 19:27, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, Scotland Yard said he had been inspired by Isis propaganda. I'm sure he was also mentally ill. That accounts to all terrorists to a certain degree. Histogenea22 (talk) 19:34, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * A terrorist may have more than one motivation for an attack, it means the attack is within the scope of two lists. 1Kwords (talk) 20:00, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Terrorism is a crime. Police (and all WP:RS covering the incident) say no such crime occurred - end of story. We've had this silly argument before. In all civilised Western societies a person needs to possess a reasonable extent of sanity to commit a crime - it is a fundamental principle of law that a person must have understanding of what they are doing.


 * So does Tesat say this was "Islamic terrorism" - or is it once again simply covering the incident in that section of the report? I'm assessing nothing about this incident, I leave that to police and all the UK coverage, which initially speculated that it could be terrorist, then concluded it wasn't. If either of you know something that neither the police nor UK press know - please inform us. Pincrete (talk) 21:15, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * After further inquiries, Scotland Yard this week publicly said so, but also said Mire had been inspired by Isis propaganda on his phone, the downloading of which appeared to coincide with his mental health deteriorating. The IS-inspiration is still there in WPRS sources and people were stabbed. There's a difference between "no crime" and "no attack", since injured people were taken to the hospital after all. Also an attack can have islamist inspiration without being a terrorist attack. Please contribute to the Ludwigshafen thread Pincrete, it concerns an edit of yours. 1Kwords (talk) 21:57, 7 September 2018 (UTC) Edited 1Kwords (talk) 22:33, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * "Scotland Yard originally classed the attack in December 2015 as an act of terrorism. It came as fears of Islamic State were at their peak, coming weeks after marauding terrorist gunmen attacked Paris. But the victim, the doctor who treated him and a substantial part of Britain’s security establishment believed Mire’s violence was a result of his acute mental health problems rather than a political motivation. After further inquiries, Scotland Yard this week publicly said so, but also said Mire had been inspired by Isis propaganda on his phone, the downloading of which appeared to coincide with his mental health deteriorating.


 * That is pretty unequivocal - "rather than" - not "in addition to". It takes a whole bunch of SYNTH to extrapolate from that this was deemed - in any meaningful sense - to be terrorist in nature. Police don't lightly decide to downgrade a prosecution if there is a hope in hell of securing conviction. As we all know, seriously mentally ill people can be 'inspired' by anything to do anything. Pincrete (talk) 08:39, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Seperate attacks in seperate columns
As long as terrorist attacks aren't proven to have been coördinated, they should be seen as seperate attacks. Therefore, they also should be described in separate columns. I think this is the case with at least one of the attacks between January 7 and 9 of 2015 in France (January 2015 Île-de-France attacks), the Hypercacher kosher supermarket siege isn't even mentioned in this article. This possibly also accounts for 2015 Copenhagen shootings and the 2017 Barcelona attacks. Histogenea22 (talk) 11:17, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I think we should match however Europol's TE-SAT does it. I'll look into it when I have some spare time. TompaDompa (talk) 11:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * When you do, please give me the source so I can look into it as well. Histogenea22 (talk) 11:48, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You can find all the reports here. Note that there is a one-year lag, i.e. the 2018 report is about terrorism in 2017. TompaDompa (talk) 11:52, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The two in Spain are seen as seperate attacks. You can look for it at pages 23 and 24. According to Europol there have been 10 deadly jihadist attacks in 2017. The two in Spain are described seperately (underneath each other). Histogenea22 (talk) 13:00, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The attacks in Denmark were done by one attacker. The attacks in France in January where coördinated. The Hypercacher kosher supermarket siege isn't mentioned in this article however and it should be in my opinion. Histogenea22 (talk) 14:11, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

WP articles tends to collect attacks by the same cell into one article, that appears to carry over into "one row" in this article. This is why the Copenhagen attacks have the dates as 14-15 February. The Ile-de-France attacks are described as "The main attacks were the Charlie Hebdo shooting and the Porte de Vincennes siege." in the Details column with wikilinks. 1Kwords (talk) 20:58, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Now that you mention it, "one article, one row" is a better method than the one I suggested. TompaDompa (talk) 23:22, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That is not what he is saying. He says there "WP articles tends to collect attacks by the same cell into one article". The attacks weren't from one cell if I'm correct. Histogenea22 (talk) 23:34, 7 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what is being argued here - the whole Barcelona saga (which comprised two attacks and several violent peripheral events) - is treated as a single article both because that is how most sources dealt with the subject, and also because it is the most coherent fashion to cover the whole sequence of events. It makes narrative sense for us to follow suit and cover the incidents as a single entry here (within which we mention briefly the distinct elements). Europol may well list Barcelona as two attacks - but I see no advantage to us following suit - since both entries would link to the same main article. We are trying to present info in a coherent summary fashion - linking to more detailed accounts, not maximising the number of distinct entries. Pincrete (talk) 09:04, 8 September 2018 (UTC)~

Could you add to the location column that the attacks took place in Barcelona and Cambrils? The town is located 120 km south of Barcelona. Futhermore both attacks where claimed by Islamic State according to Europol and both attacks have been classified as jihadist terrorism by Europol. Histogenea22 (talk) 12:16, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

And the one at Orly Airport
2017 Orly Airport attack Histogenea22 (talk) 12:31, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It was removed in as it was not cited as Islamic terrorism. TompaDompa (talk) 13:23, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding me? There is literally a source that says he wanted to "kill and die in the name of Allah". Histogenea22 (talk) 13:39, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Per this source Selon les témoignages des militaires agressés, l'homme aurait déclaré "Posez vos armes, mains sur la tête. Je suis là pour mourir par Allah, de toutes façons, il va y avoir des morts." Il a été abattu par les militaires, au bout de quelques minutes. and further Sur l'assaillant, les forces de l'ordre ont retrouvé, en plus de bidon d'essence et de son revolver à grenaille, 750 euros, ainsi qu'un Coran, un briquet et un paquet de cigarettes.. What about this source? A man shot dead by French soldiers at Paris Orly airport on Saturday shouted he was there to “die for Allah” and tried to seize a soldier’s assault rifle, apparently intending to open fire on passengers, a prosecutor said.. 1Kwords (talk) 17:25, 5 September 2018 (UTC)


 * We have in place a set of criteria - namely that recognised local authority - or Europol - should refer to an act as an act of Islamic terrorism (or close synonym - Islamist/Jihadist etc). This is precisely to avoid editors assessing on available evidence (such as witnesses claiming to hear "God is great" or similair 'slogans' - which have too often proved to be unreliable, and which, in themselves, prove little), what the motive was. There are disadvantages to this approach, since different countries have different thresholds for both elements (Islamic and terrorist), but there are no advantages to the WP:OR approach of editors arguing about the evidence. In this instance, the witnesses appear to be more reliable than usual (police), but I still think we should exclude unless authority makes an unequivocal statement on both elements (Islamic and terrorist). Pincrete (talk) 10:29, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Please tell me how this is not clear. It's just bananas. "A police source described the attacker as “a radicalised Muslim known to intelligence services". Paris prosecutor Francois Molins told a news conference on Saturday evening that at the airport, Belgacem yelled he wanted to die in the name of Allah and said “whatever happens, there will be deaths”. [...] Like many other Islamists, Belgacem is believed to have been radicalised in prison and was put under surveillance after being freed, although it was unclear when monitoring stopped." Source: The Independent. Histogenea22 (talk) 15:24, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * has it right. I don't disagree with the conclusion that it's probably Islamic terrorism, but that conclusion still constitutes WP:OR. TompaDompa (talk) 16:45, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

The source is perfectly clear, the perpertrator was radicalized. There's neither "probable" nor WP:OR, there's only WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The side of the discussion that keeps bringing new WP:RS sources is frequently one that prevails in the long run. Time will tell. 1Kwords (talk) 05:06, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * "The perpetrator was radicalized" is not the same thing as "official sources unequivocally refer to the event as Islamic terrorism (or a close synonym)". It doesn't meet the inclusion criteria. You keep invoking WP:IDONTLIKEIT when I disagree with you. This is not a matter of personal opinion, but one of complying with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines as well as the inclusion criteria of this article. TompaDompa (talk) 07:17, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The side that keeps bringing WP:RS usually prevails in talk page disputes and you have contributed zero to this thread so far. Fairly sure what the outcome will be in the end. 1Kwords (talk) 09:23, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You guys made up those ridiculous inclusion criteria yourselves. Do you realize that often the judge only has to decide whether it was terrorism or not? At least in the Netherlands there isn't a separation between "islamic/jihadi terrorsim" and other kinds of terrorism in criminal law. So someone is sentenced for terrorism and not for a specific kind of terrorism. The ideology is background information; what led the terrorist to it's deeds. So if they say "it is a terrorist attack [...] he is a radicalized muslim" it means it is an islamic inspired terrorist attack. The inclusion criteria are unrealistic and don't fit with the reality. As a result of which, Islamic-inspired attacks are not included in the list and the consequences of Islam for the West are not correctly represented. Histogenea22 (talk) 10:12, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * We may seem to be overly pedantic - but a couple of years ago this article listed approx. twice as many incidents as having occurred in France as either the Gdn or Tesat claimed for the same period (Tesat as I understand it, simply collates information supplied by national police forces), with similarly inflated figures for other countries. That cannot be good - for WP to have 'invented' crimes which simply hadn't happened AFA the nation involved was concerned. Cases included ones where the police concluded after initial enquiry that the person was seriously mentally unbalanced, in other cases they had concluded that the incident was a 'hate-crime', not a terrorist incident. In practically every instance there were initial reports of 'slogan-shouting' or other superficial indicators upon which a sea of media speculation floated. If authorities decide that this meets their criteria - the info will be passed on to Europol and will be included in their report - if they don't it won't and neither should we. Pincrete (talk) 11:53, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Not pedantic, since a pedant would restore material once more information and sources are available. This is not the case. 1Kwords (talk) 13:13, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The inclusion criteria were just about the only clear agreement to come out of a previous 'scope' RfC. The consensus on that was that "official sources' should characterise an event both as terrorism and Islamic (Islamist/Jihadist). Individual editors assessing how many Islamic slogans a person shouted (according to witnesses who don't speak a word of Arabic?), how many junior reporters half way across the globe speak of an incident as terrorist (in passing and with no expertise?), how many neighbours comment of beard-growing, and superficial signs of radicalisation etc etc etc. All of these are impossible criteria on which to assess ex/inclusion. Prior to that, the article was a rag-bag of individual speculation of what might be terrorist and might be Islamist. I know of no significant event in Europe in which police and public authorities have said one thing, but in which there has been any significant disagreement from RS - so why abandon criteria that work and make sense. Pincrete (talk) 23:44, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

asking permission to add 2016 Ludwigshafen bombing plot
Hi, could you look into adding 2016 Ludwigshafen bombing plot? Perhaps it has been deleted already before the trial was concluded? Please look into it, much appreciated. 1Kwords (talk) 05:12, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It was deleted in . TompaDompa (talk) 06:17, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not September 2017 anymore. The trial was concluded in April 2018 and at this stage more information is available. What do you think, ? Will you restore what you deleted now that more information is available? 1Kwords (talk) 06:41, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi and, if information is deleted out of "orderliness" and "strict adherence to guidlines", should not they also be restored when new WP:RS information comes to light? 1Kwords (talk) 18:26, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure where you got "orderliness" from and don't understand the use of MOS:SCAREQUOTES for adherence to guidelines. In response to your question, I guess it could be noted that verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, but more to the point there's nothing stopping you from adding the information yourself. TompaDompa (talk) 23:18, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Per Bold - Revert - Discuss. Someone added it, Pincrete reverted it, now there is discussion. 1Kwords (talk) 05:30, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * 12 months ago I removed (to the day)! Available info can change a lot in 12 months. I wasn't aware that I had removed recently! I would say that Ludwigshafen should be included though with a text that includes the recent trial of the boy's mentor - the boy himself gave evidence in court as to his intentions. Pincrete (talk) 00:06, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I've added it with extended info. 1Kwords (talk) 08:12, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Jihadist attack in Belgium on August 25 2017
"On 25 August one soldier was lightly wounded, after a machete-wielding man attacked them in Brussels (Belgium). The perpetrator was shot dead at the scene. The attack was claimed by IS through a breaking news statement issued by A’maq News and later reported in al-Naba’." Source Europol yearly report page 24. Histogenea22 (talk) 13:02, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Good find, I have added it. 1Kwords (talk) 08:12, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Villejuif incident
There's the Sid Ahmed Ghlam case where a female dance instructor was shot dead in April 2015 during a car-jacking. The suspect was later found to be planning attack. There are no details of a conviction in the article, does the French version. There appears to be a lengthy investigation. 1Kwords (talk) 17:59, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, your talk page indicates that you are skilled in French, or even a native speaker. I wonder if you're familiar with this case and know or search for if there's been an official court verdict? My French skills aren't really yet up to the task of googling in French legalese. 18:40, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Conviction for plot in the Netherlands
On April 18th 2018 a 24 year old man was convicted of plotting a terrorist attack against the Dutch prime-minister, a luitanant-general, politician Geert Wilders and a comedian. The court found it among other things lawful and convincingly proven that the man for the purpose of the armed Jihad had adopted the radical extremist ideology of the armed Jihad with a terrorist objective conducted by the (terrorist) organization Islamic State. Sources: verdict, press release of the Court and an article of the national news agency NOS. Histogenea22 (talk) 17:39, 7 September 2018 (UTC)~
 * He was arrested in 2016 after he was seen driving in his car in the city of Eindhoven with a balaclava on source. Histogenea22 (talk) 17:44, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I've added it, using machine translation (I read & write German and English but not Dutch). If there's something missing or incorrect, please let me know. Thanks for the sources you found, I much appreciate constructive input. 1Kwords (talk) 19:00, 10 September 2018 (UTC)