Talk:Islamic terrorism in Europe/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Casualty tallies in infobox

We need to decide whether or not to keep these, and if we do, how to keep them as accurate as possible.

I would prefer that they be removed (or at the very least, the layout be changed substantially to fix the issues detailed below), for a number of reasons:

1. I find them to be distasteful. It looks like a scoreboard to me. Mind you, this does not carry any real weight as an argument. It's just my opinion.
2. This is not a war, nor really a well-defined conflict at all. As such, the "belligerents" are extremely poorly defined, and very much a case of apples and oranges. This would be incredibly obvious if we, as is standard with battles and wars, added (or rather, tried to add) their respective "strengths".
3. The casualties themselves are also very "apples and oranges"-y, both within categories and between them. Counting civilians as losses for one side and militants for the other is both strange and inappropriate. Furthermore, listing in addition to one side's fatalities their injured and to the other side's fatalities their arrested is also strange and inappropriate. I'd also argue that grouping civilian and law enforcement casualties together is strange, that grouping ISIL/al-Qaeda/Taliban/Lone wolves together without distinction is strange, and that grouping casualties from different countries that aren't necessarily allies together might be.
4. The figures are almost certainly going to be inaccurate if we keep full precision (i.e. if we don't do any rounding). This is in part due to our not being able to guarantee exhaustiveness, in part due to the sources (especially when it comes to injuries – methodologies may vary wildly, e.g. with regards to whether only hospitalised injured people are counted or if people who were treated at the scene are also included). This could be ameliorated (but not outright fixed) by rounding the figures down to the nearest ten or hundred (or whatever is most appropriate) and adding "at least" before the figures.
5. Most importantly, WP:CALC states that Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources. I dispute that these summations are "obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources" (much as a result of the above points). As such, they would be in violation of WP:OR.

If we do decide to keep the totals, I would suggest that an edit notice be added to the effect of "When adding or removing entries, make sure to also update the casualties in the infobox." I'm inclined to think that it would be too much of a hassle to keep it accurate for it to be worth the bother, though. TompaDompa (talk) 22:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree calling it a war, portraying it as a war and having the layout of the article as such is not good. It is a clear violation of WP:CALC as mentioned. I would like to go further and on the basis of the point above get rid of this being portrayed as a war with some start date in 2014, which is clearly arbitrary, and without good reason as the start date. there is no start date, and having the 2014 start date makes it come across as if there was some declaration of all this which there was not. This is largely a fail of OR and a lack of sourcing. there is no consensus on this being laid out the way it currently is, and the reasons above are a good starting point for why this needs rectifying, as set out by TompaDompa Sport and politics (talk) 23:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Agree completely with both, the whole 'war' portrayal is confusing and misleading. Pincrete (talk) 06:06, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Re 'Injured', there is no consistent method of calculating of these. At Nice, a figure of around 100 treated immediately became nearly 500 in the fortnight following the attack, what one suspects are multiple 'sprains and bruises' which people chose to delay treatment for. At other attacks, the figure we list is those immediately hospitalised, ignoring later need for treatment. The distinction is often, but not consistently, made on articles between critical/non-critical injuries, but overall we are lumping together dis-similar things, which makes the figures a bit pointless. Pincrete (talk) 07:41, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I would keep the counter because it's one measure of the effect of 'Islamic terrorism in Europe(2014–present)'. We had also some discussion on Talk:List_of_ongoing_armed_conflicts on whether it's a conflict or not. And now we have included it as a conflict as mentioned by UCDP. The question was really around the fact that the attacks are organized or not. With the pattern since 2014, we came to the conclusion they are linked with the same allegiances. 2014 is really when ISIL came first in allegiances part of the attacks in Europe. @TompaDompa: I don't understand your points on casualties grouping. How would you group them? We have clearly two sides of the conflict. And finally, figures should be based on sources, with low range-high range if needed. Wykx (talk) 10:12, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Forgive the inquiry here this is a genuine question and is not ascription of any motive or anything else, but who are "we", and what is the relevance of the link. I cannot fathom out either.

I would argue that casualty number should only come from official sources, and even then it does not mean it is a reliable number. including the number is just far too subjective..

I would also dispute that there are two sides. there are criminals here, which are generally one sided, and some organisations which are "one side". I am though not entirely sure who the other side are meant to be. Entire nation states or the general public do not count, as there is no evidence to support that other than saying "well it's obvious" or "surely it is they said they are against them" and that is only an opinion. By that logic the whole world is in conflict itself everyday. which is clearly an unsustainable position.

In all I would remove and adding up of "casualty figures" remove this being a conflict remove the arbitrary start date, remove the non-notable criminal activity, remove the all material where the sourcing is either non-existent or questions, and probably in the long run merge this with the terrorism in Europe article. This is not good enough to stand on its own as an article. Sport and politics (talk) 10:38, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that it is meaningful to treat this as an 'armed conflict', and no sources do so AFAIK, however many of the problems with the article arise from trying to do just that. A few years ago Hollande made a speech saying 'we are at war' (approx.), this used to be quoted in the lead. His use was clearly rhetorical, like 'war on drugs', 'war on poverty' etc. and no one treats these attacks as a war in the ordinary sense. The start date is arbitary from our point of view, but not arbitary if you start out from a presumption that a 2014 call from ISIL is the catalyst for everything we have seen in Europe since, which most commentators don't AFAI can see, but which I suspect was the original raison d'etre for the list. Pincrete (talk) 11:59, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

@Wykx: And now we have included it as a conflict as mentioned by UCDP. You keep using that source. I do not think it says what you think it says.

• It does not list Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Austria, Italy, or Albania as being involved in any conflict at all.
• It does not list the United Kingdom, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Spain, Macedonia, or Serbia as being involved in any conflict with fatalities since 2014.
• The events that it lists that are also on this article do not all belong to the same conflict. I have identified four different ones, though there may be more.

1. The Nice truck attack, the November 2015 Paris attacks, the 2016 Brussels bombings, and the 2016 Berlin attack (along with several others) belong to a conflict called IS - Civilians.
2. The 2015 Saint-Denis raid, the 2016 Brussels police raids, and the 2016 stabbing of Charleroi police officers belong to a conflict called Government of Iraq - IS.
3. The 2016 Shchelkovo Highway police station attack (and quite a few other events in Russia) belongs to a conflict called Government of Russia (Soviet Union) - IS.
4. The January 2016 Istanbul bombing belongs to a conflict called Government of Turkey - IS.

• Note that none of these conflicts began in 2014, and none of them are limited to Europe.

In summary, the UCDP does not remotely include Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present) as a conflict.

With the pattern since 2014, we came to the conclusion they are linked with the same allegiances. [...] You did, and that was WP:Original research. You came to that conclusion all by yourselves. Moreover, you misrepresented a source as verifying an assertion it in fact did not.

I don't understand your points on casualties grouping. How would you group them? We have clearly two sides of the conflict. I dispute that there are clearly two sides. That sounds like pure WP:Original research to me. Going by the UCDP, there are at least four parties (ISIL, Russia, Iraq, Turkey), not counting civilians. I assume you mean something along the lines of ISIL on one side and Anti-ISIL forces on the other, but it's not obvious to me who should be included in the latter category if that's the case. The way I would group the casualties might be kind of like the way it's done over at The Troubles, which lists:

• State security forces (listed separately from one another) as belligerents
• Paramilitary groups (listed separately from one another) as belligerents
• Civilians as non-belligerents

That way, each country would have its own entry for law enforcement casualties (assuming there are any), each terrorist allegiance (ISIL, al-Qaeda, the Taliban, lone wolves) would have its own entry for their casualties, and civilians would be listed entirely separately. TompaDompa (talk) 16:40, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

@Sport and politics: and @TompaDompa:
- About the sides of the conflict: the way TompaDompa proposes to group is fine with me. On one side there are indeed the state security forces as listed by sources. On other sides there are islamic organizations who use Fourth-generation warfare. Civilians are non-belligerents. One question is whether we should group lone wolves, ISIL and AQAP or not. They are all islamic so that's why they are included.
- About the sources for reliable number of casualties: if you think one source is irrelevant, please explain why.
- About the listed countries: UCDP doesn't include yet attacks of 2017. As well it doesn't include attacks of 2014. There are anyway other sources listed on each attack for those years.
- About common allegiances to ISIL and AQAP or islamism: It's not WP:Original research. Indeed allegiances are listed in the table with related sources for each line.
Wykx (talk) 22:42, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Wykx, regarding allegiance, I feel we should have a consistent moderated approach rather than ISIL yes/no? There are instances in which there is a demonstrable link to ISIL, or some other organisation. There are numerous other incidents where authorities have said 'no known links', but ISIL have claimed responsibility, or journalists/investigators have said "he had a flag on his computer" or somesuch. I believe, for example, that an unnamed Egyptian intelligence officer says 'Manchester' was linked to an ISIL-linked Libyan group + ISIL claimed responsibility (though in their usual ambiguous way). There are two question here, is the connection strong enough and how to render the affiliation in text. Lumping all events together as though the ISIL/whatever connection is the same is not helpful and we might perhaps develop standard phrasing "AMAQ claim responsibility, but police find no connection", or simply "claimed", when no link is established. It does become OR to turn "ISIL claimed responsibility, but police deny any connection" into "ISIL did it", which is what the unmoderated entry effectively says. I am eternally surprised by journos, political commentators and editors here, who would not believe a single word ISIL said, except when they claim responsibility.

The casualty figures which I question are 'injured', from the articles I have been involved with I know there is no consistent way of counting them, therefore adding up inconsistent figures is a bit pointless, in the case of Nice for example, article injured included all those who consulted medical help in the two weeks following the event, which was nearly 5 times the number of injuries reported immediately, other articles will list only those hospitalised or treated 'on the night'. I have no quibble with fatalities figures, which clearly have a consistent definition. My quibble relates only to the totalling of injured figures, not necessarily the injured box in the list. Pincrete (talk) 07:52, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

This is normal and common in politics and in conflicts to have several parties involved with different shades. It doesn't prevent the attacks to exist and as mentioned on Talk:Islamic_terrorism_in_Europe_(2014–present)#Proposed_redirect there are many news sources explaining these directed and inspired attacks have a pattern in Europe and even more broadly and why Isis is not a terrorist group. As for injured, I agree it can have a very fluctuent definition so in general, best is to keep the most conservative figures. Wykx (talk) 08:34, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Mmmmmm? The conflict which I am most familiar with is N.Ireland, whilst there may be individual sectarian and internecine killings which remain unsolved, all major operations by NI paramilitaries were claimed at the time and very few have proved to be false subsequently AFAIK. In this case, the number of events (not deaths) in which allegiance is disputed, far exceeds the number where allegiance is clear. Failing to report some form of 'claimed' but denied by police is de facto saying ISIL/AMAQ are RS, but European investigating authorities are not, we prefer to believe the belligerent our country is nominally 'at war with', rather than our own authorities, this is a truly bizarre position to be advancing, especially as almost all other info about an event comes from those same authorities. Nor IMO is it good enough to say that the source is sufficient to moderate the claim, this is not good enough elsewhere on WP and should not be good enough here.

It would be impossible to use most conservative figures for 'injured' unless that condition was imposed on all linked articles, which isn't going to happen. I suspect that in 'standard' armed conflicts, only injuries requiring a certain degree of treatment would ever be reported, in civilian attacks, we have no way of knowing whether an 'injury' is a minor bruise or sprain, or something life-threatening, they are all counted as 'injuries'. This means that from article to article, we are comparing 'chalk and cheese', they might as well be telephone numbers. Pincrete (talk) 09:55, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I've counted 20 attacks with clear allegiance and 11 without clear allegiance but with islamic ties (those ones representing 15 fatalities i.e. 3% of the total of fatalities). So it's a majority by far.
unless that condition was imposed on all linked articles, which isn't going to happen Why wouldn't it happen if it is the rule? We cannot reference other articles as sources.Wykx (talk) 12:48, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

This article claims 19 attacks in France between 2014-2017. The ref attached to it says 8, up to Normandy, (Autumn 2016), the UCDP also says 8 to the end of 2016 (possibly 3 more in France in 2017?), it doesn't concern you that our figure is nearly 50% out? A direct result I would say of not having consistent criteria nor displaying figures comprehensively with provisoes when apt. We also list 19 attacks in France, when these sources would both say 11. It doesn't concern you that there are such discrepancies? We are of course quite entitled to have our own criteris, but we owe it to the reader to be clear what they are, not simply present subjectively arrived at figures as facts?

I would point out that the recent UK attacks alone amount to around 35 fatalities, ISIL claimed responsibility in each case, but in each case, so far, no link has been established by UK authorities, so I won't ask you what your criteria for 'clear allegiance' were, each of us can decide what proof of allegiance happens to satisfy ourselves allegedly having a black flag at home?, but not to present those opinions as facts in WP voice. Perhaps my guess of 'uncertain allegiance' is too high, but what is an 'excusable numerical error' here, what are the criteria for 'clear allegiance'? They all appear to be arbitary and subjective and bear little resemblance to what the best sources are concluding. Our fatalities are much higher than the UCDP ones, even though UCDP calls Nice an ISIL attack, largely on the basis of 'responsibility claims', since authorities have said nothing on that account AFAIK. If we are going to accept 'responsibility claims' without any secondary evidence from authorities, let's at least say so in the text, so the reader can judge what the figures actually mean.

The only logical conclusion of the 'injured' IMO is to not do the adding ourselves. Either require a source for the total or omit it. Pincrete (talk) 14:05, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand: In this article, I see 10 attacks listed in France, not 19. Regarding UK attacks Butt had “fundamentalist views”, Khan said, which had led him to support Isis and Abedi met ISIS in Lybia. Isn't it clear allegiance enough? For Nice, I agree no contact has been established between someone from ISIS and the perpetrator. What has been identified is that the perpetrator was googling jihadist websites and that he was preparing the attack since one year before; and as you wrote ISIL has claimed responsability (knowing also that the ISIL organization encourages lone wolves attacks). As for injuries, if a source exist that is compiling data it's better to use it. Else it will be aggregation of sources. Wykx (talk) 17:24, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present)#Summary, first sentence: During this period, France has been a top European target, with 19 attacks between December 2014 and April 2017 [...]. TompaDompa (talk) 19:08, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 27 June 2017 about the number of attacks in France

Please change "19" in the first sentence of Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present)#Summary to "eight", as that's the number of attacks in the list in that time span. Alternatively, change "19" to "ten", and "April" to "June". Either works, and both should be uncontroversial. Also remove the cited source in that sentence, as it does not verify anything (not even the number 19). TompaDompa (talk) 19:20, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Agreed and "19" should be changed to "10" while "April" should be changed to "June". Wykx (talk) 20:44, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:43, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 27 June 2017

In the table List of attacks, in the column Allegiance, for the attacks of 3 February 2017, 7 April 2017 and 6 June 2017 add ISIL in Allegiance as per sources already referenced in the 'Details' column. Wykx (talk) 12:37, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I oppose this request based on the sources in combination with the precedent of listing "lone wolf" as "Allegiance". TompaDompa (talk) 19:14, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand what is not clear for you in the sources for those three attacks. Please elaborate. Wykx (talk) 20:48, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

What's not clear to me from any of the sources is that these are ISIL attacks as opposed to lone wolf attacks. I intend to start a new talk page section on this column in general, and the issue of lone wolves in particular. TompaDompa (talk) 21:23, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

3 feb: "Louvre machete suspect Egyptian who posted 'support for Isil minutes before attack" 7 april: "expressed online support for ISIL" 6 june: "The suspect claimed to be a “soldier of the caliphate” of Islamic State, according to a source close to the investigation. Investigators found a video of allegiance to Isis" What is not clear ? Wykx (talk) 22:10, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

See #The allegiance column below. In short: The sources support the attacks being ISIL-inspired, but not necessarily ISIL-directed. The inclusion of "Lone wolf" as allegiance for other entries in the list makes this problematic. TompaDompa (talk) 23:16, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Allegiance being "loyalty or devotion to some person, group, cause, or the like", ISIL-Inspiration and claiming support is typical allegiance. Wykx (talk) 05:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

"according to a source close to the investigation"? ..... "is believed to have professed support for Isil in social media messages posted minutes before the assault", again, no indication of who believes this. These to me precisely identify the problem, it is legitimate in my mind to record that these speculations exist, but not to record 'allegiance' as fact.Pincrete (talk) 07:02, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

The French police investigates, the "Brigade de recherche et d’intervention" (search and intervention brigade) has found the video and the interior minister announced it: [1]. Wykx (talk) 07:46, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough, one of the three. I was more commenting on willingness here to render speculation as established fact. Even so I think it is more informative to say 'left a video saying XYZ", rather than the simple allegiance label.Pincrete (talk) 08:00, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

...which is done in the column "Details". Allegiance column summarizes allegiances. Wykx (talk) 08:18, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

That's what I'm arguing is more of a bug than a feature. The way the column is set up allows for contradictions. Hence, it cannot be applied consistently. TompaDompa (talk) 18:53, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Just to make it clear to anyone joining the discussion, the three attacks referred to are the three 2017 Paris ones, the dates are rendered in the list as Feb and Apr (I took a while to realise thais myself!). I'm delaying a reply to the edit request pending clarification below as to the purpose of this column. The text in all three cases at present already covers the nature of the link to ISIL. Pincrete (talk) 10:46, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Not done: I'm not seeing consensus for this change yet — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:00, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 28 June 2017 – New raids across Europe

Add the June 2017 Europe police raids to the 'counter-terrorism operations' section. ThePagesWriter (talk) 14:32, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I turned this into a proper edit request for you. TompaDompa (talk) 15:00, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

It is too early to say whether this is anything more than a routine police operation. I would also suggest changing the title, though I'm not sure to what. "Europe police raids" is a bit overdramatic for something that relates mainly to a Spanish operation/group. Pincrete (talk) 17:14, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes it should be added because it is a counter-terrorism operation against Islamic terrorism. Probably the name the article linked should be changed and whether an article is necessary is subject to discussion too but these matters this should be discussed in the related article talk page. Wykx (talk) 12:28, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I oppose inclusion of this and the request below until we can establish some criteria for inclusion. At the moment we have a random list of, what are effectively, context-less police press releases. In almost every instance I have followed (those with linked articles), there is zero follow-up, ie we know that X people were arrested, but we have no idea whether any of those people were actually charged with terrorist offences and zero idea whether any prosecutions were achieved, nor for what offences. Pincrete (talk) 09:58, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I concur. Inclusion criteria are needed. This was brought up above. TompaDompa (talk) 14:35, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:11, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 29 June 2017 – Remove abbreviation of dates in column 'Date' of table List of attacks

I propose to remove abbreviation of dates in column 'Date' of table List of attacks. For example : replace 26 Jul 2016 by 26 July 2016. Wykx (talk) 13:48, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

basic housekeeping, no objection. Pincrete (talk) 09:42, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I think the point of abbreviating it was to conserve horizontal space. On my screen, that's not an issue, so I have no objections, either. TompaDompa (talk) 11:45, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Done no opposition — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:17, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 30 June 2017 – Remove Kvissel murder

Remove entry for 8 Oct 2014 Kvissel murder in its entirety, no source on the linked article or here mentions 'terrorism' anywhere, this was a matricidal murder, with a possible radical Islamic dimension. Pincrete (talk) 16:21, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Seems like a no-brainer. I removed it from List of terrorist incidents in Denmark. TompaDompa (talk) 17:29, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Support. Wykx (talk) 07:23, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:25, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 29 June 2017 – Saint Petersburg and Moscow raids

Add raids in Moscow (27 June) and St Petersburg (28 June) to the 'counter-terrorism operations' section. Official raids against Islamist groups and its recruiters.

Moscow (27 June): "The man spread among Muslims the ideas of the international terrorist organization Hizb ut-Tahrir, banned in Russia, the Moscow news agency Moskva reports. Special forces detained a 30-year-old immigrant from Tajikistan, who is passing through Moscow. The operation took place on Khromov Street on Monday evening. Utro.ru reports, police and the FSB detained two Tajik citizens in the apartment on Khromov Street, ." http://iz.ru/611536/2017-06-27/fsb-zaderzhala-verbovshchikov-v-terroristy-na-vostoke-moskvy

Saint Petersburg (28 June): "In St. Petersburg, the court arrested two alleged members of the terrorist organization Hizb ut-Tahrir, banned in Russia. They were detained during the large-scale special operation[...]" http://ren.tv/novosti/2017-06-28/v-peterburge-arestovali-predpolagaemyh-terroristov-iz-hizbut-tahrir --TonyaJaneMelbourne (talk) 13:06, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Not done for now: I don't understand "The man spread among Muslims the ideas of the international terrorist organization". Please correct/clarify — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:13, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Reading again it seems this might be your explanation for including this information, rather than the exact text you are requesting. Even so I am not clear what exactly you are requesting. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:15, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Per comment in previous, there is insufficient info to assess whether these were other than routine police operations, and whether they led to anything. Unfortunately I cannot read the sources. Pincrete (talk) 10:30, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 1 July 2017 – Template:Ongoing military conflicts

Please remove Template:Ongoing military conflicts per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. This article was removed from the template following a discussion at Talk:List of ongoing armed conflicts#Wave of terror in Europe. TompaDompa (talk) 12:25, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Wykx (talk) 10:37, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't disagree.Pincrete (talk) 10:41, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:42, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 30 June 2017 – Add link to Jihadists attacks report in Europe

After the sentence "Europe saw several occurrences of Islamic terrorist activity between 2014 and the present" add the following reference:.

References

This is probably a very good source for detailed info, but not for the specific sentence since most of the info relates to comparisons between 2015 and 2016 (eg: Although the total number of jihadist terrorist attacks decreased from 17 in 2015 to 13 attacks in 2016, of which 6 were linked to the so-called Islamic State (IS), 135 of the 142 victims of terrorist attacks in 2016 were killed in the 13 jihadist attacks).

This report presumably only covers EU countries, but I wonder whether the sentence you are wanting to attach this to actually needs reffing, or indeed needs saying. "Europe saw several occurrences of Islamic terrorist activity between 2014 and the present" is almost a truism, and is certainly supported by the body, but what does it say? Any 3-4 year period since at least 2000 would contain "several occurrences of Islamic terrorist activity" . This goes full circle to the RfC subject, what is the purpose and scope of this article and why. Pincrete (talk) 15:24, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

ps download page for the various Annual reports is here. People should remember (as I didn't!), that the 'report year' always cover the prev. year. The info might form a very good framework for 'background' even though it only covers EU. Pincrete (talk) 16:02, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Probably it could be better as a general reference on the topic as the bottom of the page? Wykx (talk) 07:19, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I like that suggestion. TompaDompa (talk) 10:56, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Question: where and how exactly do you want this adding to the bottom of the page? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:23, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I think the suggestion is as an external link. Personally I don't object, but would think we should be using these anyway as sources in the text for the 'background info'. Pincrete (talk) 10:37, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes add an ==External link== section with this link. Wykx (talk) 10:40, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Done Looks a bit odd there, but okay ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:44, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 1 July 2017 – 2017 Stockholm attack

Please change the sentence

The man admitted that he was inspired by ISIL.

to

Police said the suspect had shown sympathies for ISIL.

The reason is that (1) the current sentence fails verification (with either source), and (2) Aftonbladet (the current source) is a tabloid and there are better sources. TompaDompa (talk) 02:03, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

What police actually said in Reuters was "Police said the suspect had shown sympathies for extremist organizations, among them IS"(IL).

Our text should reflect that, rather than focus solely on IS(IL). I support conditional on that modification. Pincrete (talk) 05:54, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. Let's go with

Police said the suspect had shown sympathies for extremist organizations including ISIL.

My previous suggestion, while passing WP:V, probably doesn't pass WP:NPOV. TompaDompa (talk) 10:46, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Support. Wykx (talk) 07:21, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

References

Done I retained the original reference too. If this is incorrect, let me know — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:30, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

@MSGJ: It's incorrect; that source does not verify the text. TompaDompa (talk) 15:10, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Okay then, removed — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:01, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

The allegiance column

Currently, the contents of the boxes in the "Allegiance" column are of six different variants:

1. ISIL
2. Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP)
3. Imam Shamil Battalion (claimed)/ISIL (according to the FSB)
4. had ISIL flag
5. Lone wolf
6. [blank]

Obviously (4) is not an allegiance in itself, though it may be indicative of one. It's also obvious that it should be replaced by one of the others. What is not so obvious is which of the others should replace it – (1) and (5) are not mutually exclusive; lone wolves (i.e. terrorists who have not received direct instructions to carry out their specific attacks) do pledge allegiance to ISIL, sometimes even during attacks (as was the case with Omar Mateen, who made several contradictory claims of his allegiance). For the time being, I would suggest simply blanking it—variant (6) above—pending consensus.

This paper (currently cited in the WP:Lead) distinguishes between six different types or categories of attacks and plots – four "high-involvement" (what we might call "[ISIL]-directed") and two "low-involvement" (what we might call "[ISIL]-inspired"). I believe the distinction between high-involvement/ISIL-directed and low-involvement/ISIL-inspired plots/attacks is an important one that we should maintain in the article.

The way I see it, we have a few different options:

• Add "ISIL" as allegiance for ISIL-inspired lone wolf attacks. I would argue that this would be misleading, and therefore a direct violation of our WP:Editing policy.
• Leave the allegiance blank for those entries. I suspect that would only lead to WP:Edit warring as editors add the "missing" information.
• Rename the column, possibly "organization" or "group", and categorize attacks and plots accordingly. This would eliminate the issue outlined above – under that heading, "ISIL" and "Lone wolf" are mutually exclusive.
• Explain it in the allegiance box for the entries where it's needed. I fear this might get too unwieldy; (3) above is an example that I would consider borderline with respect to unwieldiness.
• Remove the column altogether and explain it in prose (i.e. in the "Details" box) for the entries where it's needed. This would be the simplest solution, but it would make it more difficult for the reader to get an overview of which groups are responsible for which attacks.

Thoughts? TompaDompa (talk) 23:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I would suggest to keep this column as such pending you proove those allegiances are not part of the mentioned sources. Wykx (talk) 05:43, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I may have inadvertently caused part of the problem by labelling this 'Allegiance'. This column used to be labelled 'Perpetrator', but with the same entries broadly, ie wherever an allegiance had been proposed, that allegiance was listed as 'perp', even when the event was obviously carried out by a lone agent. Would it make sense to restore 'Perp' (or group/org as suggested above), only list ISIL (or other outside agencies) where there was clear evidence of active involvement in the planning or execution. This would not prejudice inclusion of info in the main event textbox (eg "ISIL claimed responsibility/ perp pledged allegiance to ISIL by ABC") which moderates the 'lone wolf' description of who actually executed act. Pincrete (talk) 08:17, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

@Pincrete: I think that makes sense and would be the best solution, yes.

@Wykx: That's not what I said. What I said was that the column's design is fundamentally flawed, and that we should hence fix that before doing further alterations to its contents. TompaDompa (talk) 09:49, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I prefer to keep allegiance as it groups lone wolves claiming the same allegiance as well as the organisation itself. That gives a better view of the impact of each organization. Wykx (talk) 12:49, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Re: lone wolves claiming the same allegiance, but are you happy when the only claim of allegiance, is the claim made by ISIL itself? Such as this, this almost and this?. These are the ones I knew about immediately, I've no idea how many others there are. When did Amaq become, not only A reliable source, but THE reliable source on this matter? Pincrete (talk) 16:55, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I understand your concern regarding claiming by ISIL. Could we rename the column "Allegiance" by "Claimed by"? It would enable to group claims directly done by the organization and claims from the individuals having perpetrated the attack in support of the same organisation. Wykx (talk) 12:24, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

If we were going to go in that direction, why would we not put (claimed by), whenever that was the only significant supporting evidence? That would be clearer about each case, I'm not sure how others would feel about the proposition at all though. Pincrete (talk) 13:30, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes indeed. Wykx (talk) 13:51, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

What does allegiance mean ?

There was a suggestion made previously that the link to any terrorist group should be made clear in all cases (eg group claimed responsibility/ individual pledged allegiance in some way / individual showed interest in / individual was actively communicating with). Without that the info is meaningless, this is what the source used says about 3 attacks: the Saint-Quentin-Fallavier attacker had not been to Syria, but had exposed himself extensively to violent propaganda materials produced by IS, including footage of beheadings. .... The individual responsible for attacking the soldiers in Nice had expressed his desire to travel to Syria to fight, but was prevented from doing so and, consequently, acted out his violent intentions in his home country." It then goes on to say that some Paris attackers were actively directed by IS.

Two of these are listed as "ISIS", one as a 'lone wolf', though the extent of involvement is clearly very different. In the case of 'Fallavier' it is doubtful whether 'had viewed videos' proves anything at all, though if included, it should be a condition that the nature of involvement be stated. Otherwise this is simply "ISIS did it, Isis did it, regardless of how tenuous the link is. Pincrete (talk) 11:57, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I would support removing the allegiance column altogether. When the only question seem to be "ISIL or not" in any case, it might be best to just leave it out, also since the question is ambiguous depending on definition in many cases. User2534 (talk) 12:05, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Melilla

Pincrete deleted a description of an incident in Melilla on the grounds that it happened in Africa. That's totally correct physical geography, but the city is politically integrated with Spain, and thus with Europe, so the incident belongs here and I reverted it. Matt's talk 15:52, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

That was not my only reason, the incident is covered by a single tabloid source, it is very unclear whether the incident was either terrorist or Islamism related, and happened on the border post ("The incident occurred at the border between the North African Spanish enclave of Melilla and Morocco. Police said the knifeman charged at a group of officers manning the border zone between Melilla and the Moroccan city of Beni Ansar.") . The fact that the incident is not in Europe is simply an additional reason (are the Falklands in Europe by the 'political' logic ?). … … ps source says "Police have categorically dismissed the incident as a terror attack. " Pincrete (talk) 16:11, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining further, Pincrete. I wouldn't have reverted if you'd hinted at these points in your original edit summary.

P.S. The Falklands parallel is a very helpful one: the Falkland Islands are not part of the UK or the EU, whereas Melilla is integrated into the Spanish state (it has the same constitutional status as Andulasia or Galicia) and is part of the European Union for some purposes. RSs call it political Europe. I'm sure you wouldn't exclude something in Hawai'i from a list of events in the US, would you? But we can agree to disagree as it doesn't change the article. Matt's talk 21:13, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

• comment - this brings back the question of scope: is it geographical "in Europe" or is it political "in the European Union" (and then we should create additional articles for UK and for Russia.GreyShark (dibra) 16:23, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

For the record, the #RfC on scope has formally been listed at WP:Requests for closure. TompaDompa (talk) 17:33, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Barcelona Terrorist Attack

I guess 13 dead doesn't count as Islamic terrorism now, eh? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.33.139.205 (talk) 23:09, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

So far only the name of attacker is known. Some editors think that a person named Driss Oukabir may have some other motive than Islamism to drive a van into pedestrians. --TonyaJaneMelbourne (talk) 23:53, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

For one thing, we don't know the name of the attacker as far as I can tell ("Police arrested two men, [...] but neither of them was the behind the wheel."). For another, it doesn't matter what we think – what matters is what WP:Reliable sources report. WP:Don't jump the gun. TompaDompa (talk) 07:39, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Now that the Spanish PM has described it as a "jihadist attack", and it has been reported in reliable sources (example), it should be added to the list. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:42, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

While I agree that this was almost certainly a terrorist attack and can be included, per policy, it shouldn't be until we have multiple reliable sources describing it as both Islamist and terrorist. A prime minister - or a president - describing something as jihadist or terrorist does not make it so (just as the absence of a president's condemnation of an attack doesn't make one not a terrorist attack). One president's "Islamist terrorist" is another country's "man with mental health difficulties." Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 08:52, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

There were at least eight perpetrators in these attacks, and not a single suggestion of any "mental health difficulties". Why should it be ok to jump the gun in that direction without a shred of evidence when everything points to Islamic terrorism? User2534 (talk) 08:59, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Because on more than one occasion, incidents have been labelled as terrorist attacks by heads of state from other countries, while the authorities in the country where the attack had actually taken place were still investigating, and later determined that the attacks were not terrorism, merely the work of people with mental health issues. This isn't hard to understand. We're not a newspaper, we're in no hurry. Wait for the reliable secondary sources. The Finnish incident today is another case point - nothing in either source even mentions terrorism or Islamism, yet it was added here?! Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:12, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

This needs to be reliably this sourced and independently sourced confirming this is a terrorist attack, bandwagon jumping by news organisations, invoking recentism hysteria. The attack needs to be proved to be terrorism, by investigative authorities, not oh it looks like it and it could be terrosim, lets call it terrorism, just because, with no proof to back up that statement. Media outlets spewing labels for this are just spewing their opinion and nothing more. Wait before adding to Wikipeida, and to the bandwagon. Sport and politics (talk) 17:24, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

How long will it be before we change the title to something like 2014-2019? When does 'present' end?

State opinions below. Factsoverfeelings (talk) 23:46, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

You must know that previous Moslem invasions of Europe lasted many years (the invasion of Iberia, nearly eight centuries; and the Turks still occupy formerly Western lands first taken a millennium ago), so "to present" is a wiser choice than "to 2019" (until all has been quiescent for a few decades, at least). Perhaps, "Facts", your question simply arises from exasperation by atavistic violence that from a civilised perspective (Western or perhaps even some Moslem) seems as needless as it is terrible. Firstorm (talk) 08:30, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

List of attacks

Sorting of the list of attacks doesn't work properly. Unfortunately, I don't know how to fix it, could someone do that? Admirał Bum (talk) 21:58, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you can fix it by using {{ntsh|000}} tags. See List of ongoing military conflicts as example.GreyShark (dibra) 12:09, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Do we really need the tables to be sortable? I don't see any reason. It's usually better not to have them sortable if there's no particular reason they should be. TompaDompa (talk) 14:03, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 August 2017

For the barcelona attack, there are 8 attackers instead of 7 HeinzMaster (talk) 14:18, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 18:53, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

@Jd22292: http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/21/europe/barcelona-attack/index.html In the section regarding additional raids, there is a statement from the security forces about 8 dead terrorists — Preceding unsigned comment added by HeinzMaster (talk • contribs) 19:05, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Note: Marking unanswered; will leave both requests open for another user. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 19:22, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Already done Already checked the article. Don't know who made this change, but thanks. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 02:24, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 August 2017

Adding the Surgut stabbings to the list, since a video of him pledging allegiance to the Islamic state was released by the russian branch of the organization. HeinzMaster (talk) 15:24, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

https://themoscowtimes.com/news/surgut-attacker-reportedly-claims-allegiance-to-is-in-suicide-video-58717 Source — Preceding unsigned comment added by HeinzMaster (talk • contribs) 19:08, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Done I've also added a source from the Associated Press as additional evidence of the attack. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 02:42, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 August 2017

On 18th August there was a stabbing in Turku, Finland, which is not on here, but should be. TórSimonsson (talk) 07:24, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't, as there are still no sources definitively identifying the stabbing as Islamist and terrorist. See previous discussions above, WP:RS, WP:V and WP:Don't jump the gun. The alleged perpetrator has been apprehended so those criteria will (or won't) be satisfied when the trial is reported on. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done for now: per Bastun's comment above. If you reopen this request in the future, please be sure to cite a reliable source and phrase your request in a "change x to y" format so that the verbatim wording and exact placement you propose are clear. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 14:37, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Addding Brussels soldier attack, 25 August 2017, to the list

Somali man shouting "Allahu akbar" attacked soldiers with a knife. He also carried a fake gun and 2 qurans, and was shot dead. He can not speak about his motives anymore. In my opinion it belongs in this list. reference: http://www.gva.be/cnt/dmf20170825_03035518/soldaten-schieten-man-die-hen-met-mes-aanvalt-neer-in-brussel

   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.217.126.119 (talk) 19:53, 25 August 2017 (UTC) 

No no no, just no. This is far too recent to add, and this is not a news repository for bandwagon additions, which result is delusional claiming of everything from tripping over a person to a chip pan fire being claimed and labelled as terrorism. --Sport and politics (talk) 11:58, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

A soldier getting stabbed whilst the assailant screamed 'allahu ackbar' is 'delusional'? You're a fucking moron.

ISIS claimed responsibility by now [2]. Put it in. Alexpl (talk) 20:43, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Inclusion of incidents in London and Brussels

LONDON: http://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/19/europe/finland-stabbings-terror-attack/index.html https://www.reuters.com/article/us-belgium-security-idUSKCN1B52FY http://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/26/europe/isis-knife-attack-soldiers-brussels/index.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/25/buckingham-palace-lockdown-man-sword-attacks-officer/ http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41055985

BRUSSELS: http://www.gva.be/cnt/dmf20170825_03035518/soldaten-schieten-man-die-hen-met-mes-aanvalt-neer-in-brussel http://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/26/europe/isis-knife-attack-soldiers-brussels/index.html https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4330758/isis-claim-brussels-machete-terror-attack/ http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/brussels-attack-soldiers-stabbed-knife-man-somali-belgian-terror-isis-allahu-akbar-qurans-replica-a7913781.html

PUT THEM IN.

Looking at the sources you provided, only two of them (this one about London and this one about Brussels) describe either attack as terrorism (as opposed to "investigated as terrorism", for instance). The former doesn't mention motives (or Islamism, or jihadism) at all, and the latter explicitly says that the motives are unknown. As such, we can't declare either a case of Islamic terrorism without running afoul of WP:No original research. TompaDompa (talk) 18:26, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I would like to point out the following are essential requirements of Wikipeida, Wikipeida is not a soap box, a neutral point of view must be maintained at all times, and civility must be maintained on Wikipedia. Please adhear to these requirements, and edit in a consensual manner. Sport and politics (talk) 08:56, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Incidents will simply not be included just because one user shouts and demands they must be included, the information and events must pass the five pillars of Wikipedia Sport and politics (talk) 08:56, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 September 2017

18 August Turku Finland. Moroccan knife fielding 2 dead 8 injured 114.109.74.13 (talk) 04:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — IVORK _Discuss 04:33, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Redirect of Terrorism in Europe (2014-present) to this article

The page Terrorism in Europe should not be redirecting to this page. By doing so this makes out that all terrorism in Europe is exclusively of this one class. That needs to be rectified and made clear on the face of this article.

It doesn't? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:58, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Apologies - it actually did; I'd not clicked on the link, for some reason, and had gone directly to the main Terrorism in Europe article. Fixed now. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Sikh temple bombing in Germany

The bombing of a Sikh temple in Germany is not described in either news source used as either 'terrorist' nor 'Islamist', nor were the boys charged with terrorist offences (attempted murder). Yahoo says : On April 16, three German teenage boys bombed the Sikh Temple in Essen, North Rhine‑Westphalia, injuring three people attending a wedding party. Authorities charged the main perpetrator, along with his two accomplices, with attempted murder, causing grievous bodily harm, and detonating an explosive. Essen police later told media that the attackers had links with Islamist extremists in northwest Germany. … … while the German source is even vaguer … …Police arrested three people over a bomb blast that injured three people in a Sikh temple in Essen. The bomb detonated after a wedding party, blowing out windows and destroying a part of the building's exterior. A 16-year-old suspect turned himself in after police showed footage of the attack from a surveillance camera and special police units arrested another young suspect in his parents' home.

The US source (essentially the State Dept?) 'Country Reports on Terrorism 2016', DOES list the incident under 'terrorist incidents', but nowhere does it define those in its list as 'Islamic' or any synonym (though most of those listed clearly are). … … It says : On April 16, three German teenage boys bombed the Sikh Temple in Essen, North Rhine‑Westphalia, injuring three people attending a wedding party. Authorities charged the main perpetrator, along with his two accomplices, with attempted murder, causing grievous bodily harm, and detonating an explosive. Essen police later told media that the attackers had links with Islamist extremists in northwest Germany.

This partly fails our definition in that the authorities of the country where the event has taken place have not used either 'key word' while US authorities have used only one 'key word'. That this was a religiously motivated attack is almost certain, but is that automatically an 'Islamist terrorist' event? I'm bringing here, thoughts? Pincrete (talk) 08:31, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Inclusion of 2017 Hamburg attack

A man with psychological problems carried out this attack. Three days after the attack and absent a trial, prosecutors said "It appears that there is a radical Islamist background to the act", according to a reference in the main article. So, nothing definitive, although from other included sources we do know the man had pyscholigcal problems that went untreated. To my mind, this does not satisfy the criteria for inclusion. C.f. the recent RfC and WP:NOTNEWS. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:47, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

The source used (Telegraph), explicitly says "The 26-year-old, named only as Ahmad A under German privacy laws, told police he was wanted to be a “terrorist”, according to Süddeustche Zeitung newspaper. But police are said to have their doubts over the confession, and believe he may be psychologically ill".

I would say this does NOT meet the 'scope' criteria, furthermore, the pre-existing text "An Islamist stabbed seven people, one of them fatally, in a supermarket in Hamburg while shouting "Allahu Akbar"." Substantially fails to record the 'whole picture'. Pincrete (talk) 18:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

References

Issues with Template:Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present) and Template:Campaignbox Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present)

There needs to be a discussion to determine the "rules" for including wikilinks in these templates. Including the possibly of a name change for these templates. These is a requirement from the closer of the template discussion. Sport and politics (talk) 11:26, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Link to the closed discussion. TompaDompa (talk) 13:38, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 September 2017

Turku stabbing has updated info clarifying the attackers motive. Made a manifesto and recorded himself reciting quotes from the Quran in front of the cathedral. Released this video right before the attack. Requesting putting this incident into the article

https://yle.fi/uutiset/osasto/news/nbi_turku_attack_suspect_had_two_alternative_targets/9822061

http://www.hs.fi/kotimaa/art-2000005358250.html?utm_campaign=tf-HS&utm_term=1&utm_source=tf-other&share=d1b9d147b8945ce87769c69dee00737d

HeinzMaster (talk) 03:41, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

We need official confirmation, rather than our own 'assessment' of evidence. Pincrete (talk) 05:52, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:18, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 October 2017

A confirmed terrorist attack occurred on 15 September 2017 which was the 2017 Parsons Green bombing where 30 people were injured in an explosion in London. Baileybobfam (talk) 14:32, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

 Not done I see no confirmation of Islamic terrorism. TompaDompa (talk) 14:52, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

This was confirmed to have been a terrorist attack carried out by an Iraqi asylum seeker. Isis claimed responsibility and the incident was confirmed as terrorism by the Metropolitan Police (see sources) Thanks ........ Post left unsigned by Baileybobfam

References

Being done by an Iraqi does not automatically mean it has an Islamic/Islamist motive - though it might turn out to be so. Since there will be a trial, motive will probably come out so there is no hurry and we need an explicit source. Pincrete (talk) 16:04, 26 October 2017 (UTC)