Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Fix the problems and/or discuss a rename, but the POINTy nomination is invalid -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 08:24, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Nominating this for deletion because the view by the few active users who effectively control the article is that the article is entirely based on WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, and that nothing about it is supported by WP:RS. When it is not possible to even have a lead section there isn't any point in having an article. User2534 (talk) 15:01, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:15, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:15, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:15, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2017 September 5.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 15:15, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - Being WP:POINTy and refusing to discuss a controversial edit is perhaps not the best argument for deletion. Nonetheless, there may be a legitimate claim for deletion or at least refocusing the topic of this article.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:26, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Please note the concurrent Templates_for_discussion/Log/2017_September_2. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:42, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Snow Keep. Invalid deletion rationale. Content disputes with editors, per their personal POV, refuse to recognize Islamic terror - are content disputes - not grounds for deletion. The Islamic terror wave in Europe from 2014 (or there about) is quite pronounced and few terror experts would dare dispute its existence.Icewhiz (talk) 16:00, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Re:The Islamic terror wave in Europe from 2014 (or there about) is quite pronounced and few terror experts would dare dispute its existence. Actually this is a fallacy and none of the refs used support this assertion, certainly the majority don't. Apart from France, which had an explosion of attacks from 2014-16 there are few patterns across Europe and the number killed in both UK and Spain for example (even allowing for recent events), does not support such an assertion. That there has been any kind of pattern in Europe since 2014 is simply an unfounded and unsourced assumption. The sources used to support the claim have actually said things like 'many', not 'more' and have focussed on France, not Europe. Pincrete (talk) 13:51, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * While there are apologists espousing this, you won't find terrorism experts expressing this view. See for instance CSIS's Anthony Cordesman (cliff notes here - ), fuller report here: . Nearly all reported fatalities and most of the casualties were the result of jihadist terrorist attacks. The total number of 142 attacks is a continuation of a downward trend that started in 2014 when there were 226 attacks, followed by 211 in 2015..... Most arrests were related to jihadist terrorism, for which the numbers rose for the third consecutive year: 395 in 2014, 687 in 2015 and 718 in 2016. (he prefers to use Jihadist in preference to Islamist or Islamic Extremist/Fundamentalist - which is mainly a matter of flavor).Icewhiz (talk) 14:08, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think that anyone doubts that most many of the terrorist events and terrorist deaths in Europe since the early 2000s have been Islamist, people like IRA and ETA have been marginal . I didn't say that was not true, and your sources do not contradict my point, which - put briefly - is that there is nothing special about 2014 and the date does not mark any significant pattern EXCEPT in France when it was the year before the beginning of two years of very deadly terrorist activity. Your source says "If one looks at the START data on the total for Western and Eastern Europe, which includes Russia, the impact of terrorism peaks in the 1970s. It rises again in 1991, driven by terrorist attacks in the Balkans, Palestinian violence, and terrorism in the FSU and Russia. It then peaks for a third time in 2014-2015, driven by both violent Islamist extremism and terrorist activity in the Ukraine. Later it says: If one only examines Western Europe, the START reporting on the patterns in Western Europe shows a rise in incidents after 2010, driven largely by violent Islamist extremism and the influence and actions of ISIS, that reached new peaks in 2015-2016 .... Turkey was a key center of terrorist attacks because of political unrest and Kurdish separatism ..... from mid-2015 onwards. There are many other dates and stats in your sources, none of them supports your claim that "The Islamic terror wave in Europe from 2014 (or there about) is quite pronounced".


 * There is nothing significant about the year 2014 and the central claim which has opened this article since its creation, is a fallacy. 2005, 2007, 2010 and 2014 may be all significant milestones for some reasons, in different parts of Europe. Your sources themselves note that special factors apply in Russia and Turkey. I'm not opposed to a list of Islamist terrorist attacks in Europe, or in 'Western Europe' I would simply like its logic and claims to be based on what the balance of best sources say and that is a great deal more complex than you, or the article are saying. Pincrete (talk) 15:24, 6 September 2017 (UTC)


 * You could argue 2013 or 2012 instead of 2014 - however this is a separate phase from previous Al-Qaeda/Global-Jihad in the earlier 2000s - in which we see "lone wolfs", "Islamic State", "Islamic State inspiration" - an generally a large amount of attacks (often disorganized and ineffective amateur attacks with improvised means (e.g. knives, cars, trucks). The reason 2014 is often cited as a date is number of casualties in Europe by year and Jihadists arrests per year in Europe. The underlying phenomena is an increase in the number of attacks and "Islamic State" influence as well as fighters returning from Syria to Europe.Icewhiz (talk) 15:40, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Well the chart puts a first peak at 2004-6 (Sp+UK?), the 2005 London was of course 'lone wolves', so they are not new. I also noticed that your quote above says that 2014 was the beginning of a downward trend, our article has said the opposite since its creation. That there may be changes in trends, including that a small number recently are verifiably ISIS directed, and a much larger number may/may not be ISIS inspired, should be rendered in text, as should any 'Syria' element. IMO, the year and the 'Europe-wide' definition are simply 'stones round our necks'. What happens in Turkey or Russia has very little connection to events in Western Europe. Arrests is more of an indicator of host priorities than of acts. Pincrete (talk) 16:35, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that anyone doubts that most of the terrorist events and terrorist deaths in Europe since the early 2000s have been Islamist, people like IRA and ETA have been marginal. That's flat out wrong. According to Europol's yearly terrorism reports: The majority of events have all throughout this period been separatist in nature, i.e. "people like IRA and ETA". No, really: pick a year, and more than half of the events that year will have been separatist events. TompaDompa (talk) 16:45, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * See deaths classified as Islamist. Note that national authorities do not all have an Jihadist classification, but rather lump them in a basket. The number of Jihadist deaths and deadly Jihadist attacks has increased significantly from around 2014. Tactics and profiles of attackers are quite different than the previous AQ activity. Lone wolves existed previously, but not at these proportions.Icewhiz (talk) 17:52, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * TompaDompa, I stand corrected about events, if not deaths, which would show an earlier peak, if Madrid train + London tube were included. My substantive point however is that the 2014 'start date', is at best, arbitary and at worst formulated on a number of fallacies as to whether/what changes occurred at that time, and that the overall picture is a great deal more nuanced than the article seeks to present. Pincrete (talk) 18:31, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It would appear to coincide with the rise of ISIS, although not all of the people who carry out these attacks are card-carrying ISIS members, thus the need for a wider encompassing title. Claíomh Solais (talk) 19:05, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "It would appear to coincide with the rise of ISIS", but we know full well that only a tiny number of these attacks have any discernible link to ISIS, while large numbers of others MAY BE inspired by, and others have clearly no connection at all, so we'll bypass normal rules about rational objective criteria for lists and make it all into a pea-soup that clearly contradicts the best available sources. That, unfortunately, is par for the course on this article. Pincrete (talk) 08:30, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Alas - these are the challenged of "Lone Wolf Terrorism" - where the Jihadists attack after on-line indoctrination from social media, YouTube (e.g. Ahmad Musa Jibril), and other such loose connections - possibly leaving a note somewhere they did it for ISIS, ISIS claiming it, or something similar. Things were so much easier back in the 2000s when most of these had clear chains of command and direction from "terrorist masterminds". However - this being a defining characteristic (Jihadist lone wolf attacks, peppered with a few organized ones) - is not really in doubt by any terrorism expert (whether 2014 is the start year - debatable - but there is definitely a divide between the AQ early 2000s, the quiet Jihadist front in Europe 2006-11, and the current phase of "lone wolves with ISIS "inspiration"").Icewhiz (talk) 09:00, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:01, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep - Goes without saying, really. The article needs better sources, a cleanup of WP:SYNTH, and perhaps a small shift in focus but the topic is obviously notable.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:26, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Speedy Snow Keep - the rationale is specious, and there is a discussion board on the page which is very active, and thoroughly explores all of the issues, and is not afraid to challenge additions from all quarters, on this controversial subject matter. Sport and politics (talk) 17:19, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment – Based on the presented rationale for deletion, this AfD strikes me as disruptive in order to make a WP:POINT. I would also urge to read WP:AGF. With that said, I think it would be valid with an AfD based on WP:DEL6 and/or WP:DEL7 considering that there is indeed a view among some editors that the article is entirely based on WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, and that nothing about it is supported by WP:RS (well, kind of – what I've come across isn't quite that categorical). An argument in favour of deleting the article rather than clarifying (and possibly adjusting) its scope and inclusion criteria might be that a recent attempt to do the latter failed to reach WP:CONSENSUS. TompaDompa (talk) 17:25, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Rename to include "List" in the article's title. The current lede section ("Europe has seen Islamic terrorist activity since 2014.[2]") has multiple problems, and much of the prose is WP:OR or WP:SYNTH.  The lists in the article should clearly be kept somewhere. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:58, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep The reason for deletion is "few active users...effectively control the article". No one controls articles on wikipedia. If it needs a lead, write one. I note that elsewhere people are arguing to delete a template because this page exists, which seems circular argument given this discussion Tim bates (talk) 19:57, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: the nomination describes a content and/or behavioral problem. Take appropriate steps to arrive at consensus regarding the content of the article. If core policies are violated, pursue protection of the article and/or sanctions against users who persist in breaking the rules. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:12, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep  Despite the reality that this article has been subjected to pitched battles over what qualifies as "terrorism," (battles fought by tiny numbers of editors on the talk page and won by the side that musters more combatants who are willing to keep arguing longer)  it is a useful topic that can and should be improved by more eyes on the page, more editors, and, perhaps, by some sort of ranked language that would allow editors to designate type of support for an attack being terrorism-related.  Rather than, as now, removing articles where any sort of doubt can be cast on the terrorism connection by editors, despite incidents being blue-linked and demonstrating well-sourced linkage to terrorist motivation.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:15, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - "nominating articles that are heavily sourced in very reliable international news sources are never going to be deleted, regardless of NOTNEWS," said someone. XavierItzm (talk) 09:22, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep but rename "Care Bear Hugs in Europe" to appease bourgeois liberals. In all seriousness though, the talkpage pitch battles, where a small group of editors frantically fall over each other to try and keep out whatever most recent Islamist mass casualty attack has happened on that day from being mentioned (probably the most dedicated being TompaDompa), regardless of the mountain of mainstream media coverage, is a bit of a circus and a great waste of time/energy for those who are forced to try and uphold some basic standards in this area. So I can see where the nominator is coming from, though suggesting the article itself be deleted probably isn't the right way to go about this wider problem in this topic area and each issue should be dealt with individually. Claíomh Solais (talk) 18:57, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * If you're going to mention me—here or elsewhere on Wikipedia—I'd appreciate if you would make my username a link to my user page so that I'm notified. Could you perhaps clarify what you mean by a great waste of time/energy for those who are forced to try and uphold some basic standards in this area, in particular what the basic standards in question are? TompaDompa (talk) 19:38, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "Rename Care Bear Hugs in Europe to appease bourgeois liberals." - you really do need to stop using wikipedia to play out your personal political and religious battles. It is really rather pathetic and distracting.Contaldo80 (talk) 08:48, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I am probably one of those editors who frantically fall over each other to try and keep out whatever most recent Islamist mass casualty attack has happened on that day from being mentioned. I do this until a reliable police or govt source explicitly says it is Islamic/ist terrorism (ie not good enough that someone who is probably Muslim commits a crime with typical Islamist MO and/or some unnamed witness says they heard an Islamic slogan, according to one obscure source). While it may be difficult for Claíomh Solais to imagine, my motives are not because I am a 'bourgeois liberal', my motives include that I presume that any reader of WP over the age of 10, when they first hear about any crime that could well be Islamist, doesn't need me to confirm what could well be true, They are not that stupid and they would rather wait to read what is known rather than read what Claíomh Solais, or I, or any 'speculator' thinks is possibly/probably true. What is the rush to state definitively that a particular event is Islamist, before even the police have concluded that it is? Pincrete (talk) 09:36, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


 * An RfC related to the issues raised above by [[User:XavierItzm and User:Claíomh Solais is underway Wikipedia talk:Notability (events).E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:35, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Rename - The evidence suggests that Islamic terrorist attacks in Europe began much earlier than 2014 - certainly in terms of the London and Madrid bombings. Even if we look at recent years than the evidence suggests a significant impact only after 2015 or arguably after 2012. Therefore 2014 is arbitary and misleading. The 1985 El Descanso bombing killed 18 people in Madrid. Just take out the dates.Contaldo80 (talk) 08:50, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Rename to ISIS terror attacks in Europe (2014–present). "Islamic terrorism", while accurate, is a rather vague term considering that virtually every single attack in Europe has been claimed/organized/carried out by ISIS and not by other Islamic terror groups (Al-Qaeda, Boko Haram, Al-Shabaab, etc.). 23 editor (talk) 15:56, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually in many, many cases, the connection to ISIS is either very tenuous (single source somewhere says possible self-radicalisation, had a black flag on computer, told friends he admired ISIS) or non-existent. Such a renaming would guarantee that the level of WP:OR would quadruple. Manchester arena, there is a possible ISIS connection via Libya, Westminster there is no connection, London Bridge there is a possible online 'linkage', Barcelona there is an ISIS claim of responsibility, but apparent 'local' radicalisation. Pincrete (talk) 16:32, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Second Pincrete. On lots of these articles we've had the argument (resolved eventually to Islamic Terror - after police investigation, etc.) - of "so what if ISIS claim it (they claim everything), so what if it was a Muslim attacker, he must have been a crazy person attacking for some non-terror reason". While a large proportion (not all) of these are ISIS "inspired" - determining each one was so inspired in difficult.Icewhiz (talk) 16:40, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


 * RenameWhy is 2014 the start date?Slatersteven (talk) 16:43, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Rename to something like "Islamic State-inspired terrorist attacks in Europe in the 2010s", write a decent lead, and list probable Islamic terror attacks since 1 January 2010. --TBM10 (talk) 20:01, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep - I don't really care if you want to rename it to something else, though each rename vote has offered a totally different rendition of what the article should be renamed to and might need to be saved for a second discussion, but, it is obvious that this is a notable topic. The assertions in the nominating statement are ... well there's a 119 sources currently used in the article. They are applied all throughout the article except the lede which isn't supposed to have citations (exceptions exist). The fact that the lede isn't written is not a cause to delete. WP:OR is a dubius assertion, however, WP:SYNTH probably exists and it is arguable that the start date should be the 24th of May 2014. Why this date? None of this amounts to the article being non-notable or unfit for purpose. So no, don't delete this article, fix whatever problems it has. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:39, 8 September 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.