Talk:Islamic terrorism in Europe/Archive 9

This is an archive of past discussions about Islamic terrorism in Europe. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Europol reports

Latest comment: 6 years ago12 comments3 people in discussion

I just read the latest Europol tesat report. According to Europol there have been 33 foiled, failed and completed jihadist terrorist attacks in Europe. "Ten of the 33 attacks were assessed as having been completed, i.e. perceived by EU Member States as having reached the goals that the perpetrators may have had in mind, which invariably seems to be the killing of what the perpetrators perceived as “enemies of Islam”, as legitimised by jihadist ideology. 12 attacks were assessed to have failed to reach their objectives in full, and 11 were foiled" Not all of these attacks are described in the report however. All ten 'fully completed attacks' are described an some more. Of the 33 failed, foiled and completed jihadist attacks in 2017, 2 took place in Belgium, 1 in Finland, 11 in France, 1 in Germany, 1 in Italy, 2 in Spain, 1 in Sweden and 14 in the UK. When we seperate the attacks in Spain and add the two attacks on August 25, still at least 13 attacks are missing. 6 in France, 6 or 9 in the Uk (I'm not sure if the three plots in the article are the ones Europol included in their count) and 1 in Italy. Histogenea22 (talk) 13:31, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Europol is only used as an excuse to delete material, not as a source to add material. 1Kwords (talk) 13:39, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

When life gives you lemons make lemonade. Hehe. In all seriousness, I don't think we should regard Europol as the only reliable/acceptable source. But since it is always mentioned as a source, let's at least add all the attacks that Europol recognizes. Histogenea22 (talk) 13:51, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, let's make lemonade! Of course we should add the Europol-recognized attacks. Let's focus on finding sources & contributing to the article rather than to argue with editors who have no interest in adding material to the article. There should be more sources out there, I have used MI5 and other United Kingdom police web pages and that material could not be deleted by opposing editors. It's harder to google and get good results in French and German. 1Kwords (talk) 15:25, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I think it's important to underline that the Europol reports don't provide a complete overview of all jihadists terrorists attacks that they themselves have recognized. Histogenea22 (talk) 14:18, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Terrorism is s crime, defined in similar terms in all European countries (certainly Western European ones). The people who decide whether the crime of perpetrating an act of terrorism has occurred are the police of each country, (+ prosecuting authorities and courts). The people who collate and analyse the info received from national police/courts etc are Europol (they present statistics, trends etc) - but they don't engage in their own research. OK occasionally there is controversy about how a particular incident should be/should have been classified (terrorist/some other kind of crime/no crime), and there are 'quirks' in each countries criteria for inclusion. But how is it even meaningful to speak of this particular crime being committed in a country when neither the police of that country, nor other national legal authorities nor Europol record 'Islamic terorism' as having actually taken place? In what imaginable circumstances is that even a meaningful statement?

We've had absurd arguments here in the past because editors have found 'throwaway' journalism from half way across the globe from Europe describing an incident as 'terrorism', when national legal authorities have said no such thing. Unless we assume that European legal institutions are engaged full-time in 'burying the truth' and that papers 1000s of miles from the incident are better equipped to investigate than the police with access to all the info, there is simply no better, more reliable or more authorative sources than the various bodies actually conducting investigations. Pincrete (talk) 19:17, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Europol is not the only WP:RS source, it can't hurt to use other sources as well. It has the great advantage that editors don't have to wait until next spring when TE SAT 2019 is released. For instance Metropolitan Police Counter Terrorism Command publishes events on a continuous basis. If agencies in say Spain, France and Germany publish something similar that would also be useful. 1Kwords (talk) 06:17, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't disagree with that assessment, our inclusions are commonly based on 'interim assessments' supplied by police to the press, when the event actually occurs. I do however think that - longer term - when statements from local legal authorities (inc police and prosecutors, courts and Europol), contradict those initial reports, the official version takes precedence unless there is very good reason to think otherwise. The alternative is relying on - what may well be (and have in the past sometimes been shown to be) - lazily compiled press articles from half way across the globe. Pincrete (talk) 08:28, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

The last addition I did were from Ravensburg and Ludwigshafen in Germany, I cited German newspapers and that's not "halfway across the globe". In fact I have yet to identify French, German or Spanish sources akin to the Counter Terrorism Command page. Per WP:BESTSOURCES we are to use the best sources available, if Europol hasn't released a report, local authorities may well be the best available. There's nothing that prevents updating when more information comes to light. 1Kwords (talk) 08:59, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't know of any instance in which anyone has rejected info because the source was European press - only where that press did not explicitly state that authorities had ssid Is Ter - but were simply the press speculating that it could be. My 'halfway across the globe' comment refers to some instances in the past where no European or US authority had said anything - or had actually denied Is Ter, but an obscure publication somewhere on the planet treated the incident as though it were. This is a WEIGHT situation, we would have to have some good reason to credit such an obscure publication above local and police sources. I don't necessarily agree with TD about criteria for inclusion of plots - but do think we should have clear inclusion criteria and should make those explicit in the opening text of that section. Readers have a right to know what they are reading, whether that be alleged or proven plots. Pincrete (talk) 08:28, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

TLDR Pincrete, this thread is ultimately about identifying sources so we can add more information to the article. At this stage I think I've gotten better at googling for this in German, but we need more sources on plots in France & Spain. Any ideas there? 1Kwords (talk) 19:33, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Histogenea22 after a little sidetracking there, Europol says there were 114 court verdicts in France during 2017 - there could potentially be more plots to recover from those. The best would be to find some official source published by DGSI or similar. Googling French legalese is hard. 1Kwords (talk) 04:28, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Six arrested on Mallorca in 2017

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A press release linked from Europol describes a cell being arrested in Mallorca, Spain. Keeping the source here for further research. 1Kwords (talk) 05:07, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Terrorist attacks in the Netherlands

Latest comment: 6 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

Can someone with editing rights please add these two recent attacks in the netherlands? In Amsterdam on last friday August 31st In The Hague on May 5th Thanks Histogenea22 (talk) 15:41, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Looking at these sources and others, I don't see any attributable confirmation of Islamic terrorism for either attack. For the attack in May, I found "'At the time, this broad investigation gave no reason to regard the man as someone with a terrorist background, but could not exclude this either', the Prosecutor said about the report.", which means we'll probably have to wait for the trial to conclude to get something resembling a conclusive answer. For the attack last Friday, I found "'Based on the suspect’s first statements, he had a terrorist motive,' the city administration said in a statement that did not elaborate on what the statements were or how they showed intent.", which also means we'll probably have to wait, but perhaps not for as long. On the bright side, since the Netherlands is part of the European Union, we'll just have to wait until next year's TE-SAT from Europol at the longest. TompaDompa (talk) 19:29, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the attack of friday, there is already information about the motive. Histogenea22 (talk) 21:20, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

@TompaDompa: Why are you being so difficult over here, while I already gave you a good source that you could have used in stead? Histogenea22 (talk) 15:36, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I didn't have time to do a thorough fix yesterday, so I left a maintenance tag. I have fixed it now. TompaDompa (talk) 16:37, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Why is this still in the text: "Who says this is Islamic terrorism? As it is a contentious label, it should always be attributed." ? Dutch Autorities have already confirmed what the motives of the suspect where. The suspect himself has has stated that his motive was the fact that "the Prophet Muhammad, the Quran, Islam and Allah are repeatedly insulted" in the Netherlands [1] Histogenea22 (talk) 11:41, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

The comment is there because the label "Islamic terrorism" is not attributed in the text. We'll probably be able to attribute it to Europol when release their next terrorism report. TompaDompa (talk) 12:31, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Table: Islamist terrorism in the European Union[1]

Latest comment: 6 years ago30 comments4 people in discussion

I think this table should be about islamist terrorism in Europe not the EU since the article is about Europe as a whole. I also think the injuries should be included like in the tables underneath. Histogenea22 (talk) 15:38, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

This comes down to the issues with the scope, which has been discussed several times before. WP:RELIABLE sources do not use the geographical region of Europe, so we won't find sources for it. Tallying injuries has been discussed before, and we won't find sources for that either. TompaDompa (talk) 17:50, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

It's at least worth to keep looking for sources for injuries, instead of giving up. Don't be discouraged from trying. 1Kwords (talk) 20:04, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

@TompaDompa:We can just count all the 'Wikipedia-verified' casualties from this article. Maybe not a total count, but for every year in an extra row underneath the existing columns. We shouldn't state that it represents the total count of casualties. Just the total count based on the verrified attacks in the overview. Histogenea22 (talk) 11:58, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that would pass WP:CALC, which says 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. TompaDompa (talk) 12:13, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I think there is consensus about the Jihadists terrorist attacks that are included in the article. Therefore there will also be consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources. There just isn't a consensus on the attacks that aren't (yet) included in the article. That discussion stands apart from it. There will be no dicussion about a simple calculation of the casualties of the attacks that are already in the article, since there is consensus that these should be included. Histogenea22 (talk) 14:44, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

There just isn't a consensus on the attacks that aren't (yet) included in the article. – That's precisely why adding together the numbers we do have would not be "obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources." TompaDompa (talk) 23:10, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

it turns out that there is a source for injuries, the Global Terrorism Database hosted by the University of Maryland. 1Kwords (talk) 20:33, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Does that source add up the injuries or just provide separate figures for each attack? It's the adding together that is the tricky part, because what counts as an injury may vary from case to case (unlike the number of deaths, which is well-defined) meaning that a summation may not yield a meaningful number. TompaDompa (talk) 23:10, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Are there WP:RS which dispute the injury numbers added to the GTD database in this way? 1Kwords (talk) 09:05, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

That's beside the point. The point is that if we add the numbers together ourselves, we are performing improper editorial synthesis. Per WP:SYNTH, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. TompaDompa (talk) 10:43, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

In effect you're arguing that that each cell in the injuries column is a "different part" in the one database and therefore can't be combined. Is that the core of your criticism? Do you have any substantial source which supports this? 10:56, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you think the burden of proof is upon me. But yes, of course adding separate figures together is combining different parts of one source. Per WP:CALC, 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. There is no such WP:CONSENSUS in this case, I've laid out an argument for why it isn't obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources, and the most recent consensus was against inclusion of figures added up by editors. TompaDompa (talk) 11:20, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

The guideline says different parts, you're writing about separate figures Your position is unreconcilable with Routine calculations do not count as original research. The interpretation that make CALC reconcilable with with SYNTH is that a table is one part, figures in one table belong to the same part of a source. If you claim that University of Maryland are incompetent at creating a database, you need to back it up with WP:RS source - consensus can't override WP:RS 1Kwords (talk) 07:19, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

You're quote mining WP:CALC, leaving out the key requirement provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources – and I've explained how and why that requirement isn't met in this case. Do you intend to sum the entirety of a table or make a selection of entries and sum up the figures for those? The latter (which is what I've assumed you meant throughout) is textbook WP:OR. As for consensus can't override WP:RS, that's straight-up wrong when it comes to inclusion of information – per WP:ONUS, Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. TompaDompa (talk) 09:31, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the disagreement here - but will note that injury figures are fairly meaningless because they are not compiled in any consistent fashion. For example, the 2016 Nice attack had initially 52 critically injured (2 of whom died later), if I remember correctly, there were 120-ish who were initially reported as injured (either treated in situ or hospitalised). A week later that figure had become 280-ish (one can only assume that these people had suffered relatively minor injuries for which they sought hospital treatment later - those consulting their own doctors were not included in that figure), by a month later that figure had become 434. Even that figure probably ignores long-term trauma of some individuals, and those who self-treated, or got treatment from their own doctors, or non-Nice hospitals (tourists?). Nice was a very high-profile event, therefore periodic updates of the injury figures were compiled and available - this doesn't generally happen with smaller scale events. I'm not arguing against inclusion of best available stats of course, merely pointing out that they don't mean anything very consistent. Pincrete (talk) 10:45, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. We're very likely to run into a GIGO problem if we try to sum the injury figures up. TompaDompa (talk) 10:58, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

TLDR 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) 17:21, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Pincrete: let's assume that University of Minnesota are experts. When you say that note that injury figures are fairly meaningless because they are not compiled in any consistent fashion., do you have proof that UMD are incapable of handling this? Don't you think academics & scholars would have found such inconsistencies now and published criticism? This database appears to have been around for a while. You can't reject GTD statistics on the basis of comparing it with a Wikipedia article. Thanks for all the help with finding good sources to this article, it is much valued & appreciated. 1Kwords (talk) 04:43, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not rejecting anything, "I'm not arguing against inclusion of best available stats of course, merely pointing out that they don't mean anything very consistent" Particularly with minor-ish incidents. Unless Minnesota - or anyone else - used 'reported as hospitalised' figures or 'critical injury' figures - (local doctors and tourist 'home' doctors). Of course we record best available stats - but they do tend to 'peter out' in the weeks following an event and don't tend to be complete or consistent as Nice shows. No expertise can bypass the difficulties of compiling complete/consistent data, but I'm not using that as an argument for exclusion. Pincrete (talk) 08:11, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

merely pointing out that they don't mean anything very consistent you argue that experts are unable to make that judgment call. They can and they do. Where there is ambiguity, the field is left blank. See GTD CODEBOOK: INCLUSION CRITERIA AND VARIABLES page 49 "Total Number of Fatalities": This field stores the number of total confirmed fatalities for the incident. The number includes all victims and attackers who died as a direct result of the incident. Where there is evidence of fatalities, but a figure is not reported or it is too vague to be of use, this field remains blank. If information is missing regarding the number of victims killed in an attack, but perpetrator fatalities are known, this value will reflect only the number of perpetrators who died as a result of the incident. Likewise, if information on the number of perpetrators killed in an attack is missing, but victim fatalities are known, this field will only report the number of victims killed in the incident. Where several independent sources report different numbers of casualties, the database will usually reflect the number given by the most recent source. However, the most recent source will not be used if the source itself is of questionable validity or if the source bases its casualty numbers on claims made by a perpetrator group. When there are several “most recent” sources published around the same time, or there are concerns about the validity of a recent source, the majority figure will be used. Where there is no majority figure among independent sources, the database will record the lowest proffered fatality figure, unless that figure comes from a source of questionable validity or there is another compelling reason to do otherwise. and page 50 Total number of injured: This field records the number of confirmed non-fatal injuries to both perpetrators and victims. It follows the conventions of the “Total Number of Fatalities” field described above. Again, many thanks for helping out with finding sources. 1Kwords (talk) 16:50, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Of course fatalities are accurate, verifiable, consistent - if someone dies, they die - there isn't anything very ambiguous about it, they euther die immediately or of their injuries and their death will almost certainly be recorded in the press and announced by authorities. Injury figures demonstrably are not consistent - nonetheless we record them because they are the best we have. Even people like Europol cite news sources for their injury figures I think - they can hardly track down every single person at an event like Nice and ask if they suffered any injury which was not reported to the hospital 'on the day'. This argument is silly, because we attribute the best injury figures we have - but unless the news/hospital/ambulance service specifies, we have no way of knowing (in the case of Nice for example), how many injuries involved permanent disability or damage and how many were sprained joints, cuts and grazes, bumps on the head etc. - and I'm sure a large number suffering severe, delayed emotional reactions. No amount of expertise will compensate for the vagaries of people reporting to doctors and press collecting and announcing numbers and degrees of seriousness. Pincrete (talk) 19:45, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Your opinion on what a police force or expert statistician can or cannot do is irrelevant - UMD are an expert source and you don't back up your assertions with evidence. Please read again "Total number of injured: This field records the number of confirmed non-fatal injuries to both perpetrators and victims. It follows the conventions of the “Total Number of Fatalities” field described above.". The problem with your approach Pincrete is of course that there are a number of maimed and severely injured people who are cripple, with your approach (UMD aren't expert) and TD's approach (give up) we don't even provide a rough estimate. 1Kwords (talk) 04:49, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't object to giving the number of injured for each separate attack (as is already done). I do object to selecting entries from a table and adding up the figures, because (in addition to the issue of not getting a meaningful result raised above) it is blatant WP:OR (whether it is WP:OR to add up the figures from all the entries in a table is more debatable). There's really no getting around this – if the selection of entries is not done by the database itself we can't add up the number of injuries without violating WP:SYNTH. TompaDompa (talk) 09:32, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

"The problem with your approach Pincrete is of course that there are a number of maimed and severely injured people who are cripple, with your approach (UMD aren't expert) and TD's approach (give up) we don't even provide a rough estimate." No one has even suggested that we should not include casualty figures - I'm merely pointing out (for our own interest) - that they do not, and never could, represent anything very consistent - unless someone did a detailed 'follow up' of every individual affected by every event (1000s of people in the case of Nice or Manchester) - and had access to all their medical records.

Per TD - there are practical problems to 'adding up' in addition to the WP:OR ones. One editor adds a new event to the list and adds to the fatalities and injuries total - another editor removes event from list because it is not confirmed as IsTer, but forgets to deduct from totals/doesn't realise it needs to be done. This cycle repeats several times until IsTer is verified/excluded by sources (this often happens with new additions). It becomes then a pain in the nether to establish whether fatalities/injuries totals are a mathematically accurate total of the individual entries. This used to happen a lot in the days when the lead and the infobox (I think) included totals of events and fatalities and injuries for the whole page. It is much simpler - and more easily verifiable - to include individual fatalities/injuries figures from RS, and 'year summaries' which have been totalled by someone other than ourselves, (and are therefore WP:V), rather than us doing the maths. Pincrete (talk) 10:21, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

If you wish to block this edit because there is no consensus "you can't add this because there's no consensus and we are withholding consensus" I am obliged to obey circular logic as that's apparently supported by guidelines. Arguments which at the core claim UMD are inexpert have no merit. Pincrete If there's WP:OTHERSTUFF in the past, let's leave it in the past, it's irrelevant to the GTD discussion and obfuscates the issue. I don't agree with you, separate figures aren't "separate parts", different tables in a document are and GTD are conscientious in their presentation of injuries and leave ambiguous figures out according to their own guidelines. That's that, then. No injury summary yet, but there will be because I'm not giving up. 1Kwords (talk) 05:15, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand which casualty figures are being discussed here, nor whether 'year' or 'page' figures are the subject of disagreement. If what is being discussed is editors adding up table entries themselves - I am opposed mainly because the total figures then fail WP:V, and previous experience shows they become inaccurate as well as being inherently unverifiable. If what is being discussed is using some WP:V figures other than those used at present - I will judge on merits. Pincrete (talk) 08:35, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Pincrete the figures pass WP:V because GTD is WP:RS. You can't make the judgment call that GTD are unreliable - only an expert can. So you have no sources you would like to contribute to this discussion? 1Kwords (talk) 05:25, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Which figures are we discussing and used for what purpose? I haven't queried any sourced figures - merely expressed an opinion about the principle of us collating various sources into totals. Is that the subject of discussion, or have I misunderstood? Pincrete (talk) 08:26, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Pincrete not "various sources", it's about one source, the GTD compiled by the University of Maryland. Which other sources are you referring to, sources you contributed to this discussion? I must have missed them and apologize if that's the case. 1Kwords (talk) 05:12, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

But, if I understand the above discussion properly, it is about adding various figures from within the GTD database, rather than being in a position to say "according to the GTD, there were X casualties in relevant area Y between Z and Z/in year Z".(single ref endorsing this precise statement) - If that is the case I think the problems outweigh any benefits. Why is such a total so important? How does it stay up to date and WP:V? Individual entries are a strong indicator of the seriousness of each incident. Pincrete (talk) 09:59, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Why is such a total so important? I don't know why it's so important to keep such information out of the article, you tell me. It stays up to date because constructive editors maintain this article, or at least they try. 07:16, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Prague plot

Latest comment: 6 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

Hi Cimmerian praetor let's keep the source for future use when there's been a conviction. If the conviction lives up to the criteria for this article, please add the plot again. Thanks, 1Kwords (talk) 21:09, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

With the appeal process, final conviction is to be expected in about two years. 1Kwords, how about adding it there on the face value of prosecution's assessment with added information about the fact that case is still pending? Cimmerian praetor (talk) 22:32, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

{u|TompaDompa}} and Pincrete, could you explain how your rules apply to the this editor's addition? Cimmerian praetor, if you have enough WP:RS to demonstrate WP:GNG I would suggest that you create a standalone article in the meantime. 1Kwords (talk) 06:21, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't have rules and don't object to 'as yet unprosecuted' plots - conditional on text not implying guilt and the incident passing a certain threshold of 'seriousness' (which we have so far not succeeded in defining).Pincrete (talk) 14:28, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

They're not "our rules" but Wikipedia policy, specifically WP:BLP. A person stands accused of terrorist crimes and is presumed innocent until a conviction is secured. TompaDompa (talk) 15:17, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I had a look at it and it seems that almost half of the attacks mentioned on this page are based on "Europol designation". Most of the attackers were never convicted, as they died during the attack. Please explain why Europol Designation is more relevant than prosecutor designation, especially given that Europol merely puts together stats from member countries.Cimmerian praetor (talk) 08:38, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

If the attacker(s) died during the attack, there obviously won't be a trial. Either way, we go by the final result of the investigation. TompaDompa (talk) 15:32, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Cimmerian praetor you're right, we can of course use official sources such as police, courts and prosecutors in the various countries attacks happened. This has the advantage that we don't have to wait until spring every year to improve this article. The trouble is to find the sources at the national level. Do you have any ideas on sources from French, Spanish, Italian or German prosecutions? It is also true that Europol is far from complete and is not an ideal source. 1Kwords (talk) 05:35, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

1KwordsUnfortunately that requires not only language knowledge, but also on hands experience and orientation in law enforcement primary sources. Newspaper descriptions are notoriously unreliable in these cases, unless they directly cite a source that can be checked. I found that out when I was trying to add specifics to particular terror attacks as regards the origin of firearms the terrorists used. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 07:52, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it requires both language skills and WP:COMPETENCE in the subject at hand. For instance, the German security service has kind of a news page: https://www.verfassungsschutz.de/de/aktuelles/meldungen I'll try and read a little there when I have the time. Realistically, there should be a lot of material published by national agencies, but it's a manpower problem: editors who wish to add material to this article are quite few and there's significant pushback. In general it's important to keep looking for sources instead of being sucked into endless arguments on semantics and scope on this talk page. 1Kwords (talk) 07:23, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

And ping Cimmerian praetor too. 1Kwords (talk)

Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

TompaDompa hi you redlinked Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht, instead I suggest that you create the article by using its German language article as a starting point. 1Kwords (talk) 08:53, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Huh? I'm not sure which edit of mine you're referring to. TompaDompa (talk) 12:00, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

It was a while back, so I mis-remembered in the mean time. It was this edit and it concerned Gerechtshof den Haag, not Hanseatische Oberlandesgeright in Germany. 1Kwords (talk) 12:11, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

2016 Chemnitz terrorism plot

Latest comment: 6 years ago12 comments2 people in discussion

TompaDompa what do you think about adding the 2016 Chemnitz terrorism plot to the Plots section, do you think it will stay or be deleted? this source seems to confirm the jihadist terrorism link, but it's better if you check it first before I go to the trouble of extending the article only to have my work deleted later. Please check & perhaps add it yourself afterwards. 1Kwords (talk) 17:05, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

From what I can tell, we'd have to attribute the classification of the plot as Islamic terrorism to Die Welt itself, which is not good enough for inclusion. TompaDompa (talk) 19:39, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

How did you reach that conclusion? What other kind of terrorist was the suspect? „Vorgehensweise und Verhalten sprechen für IS-Kontext“ sagte der Präsident des sächsischen Landeskriminalamts. 1Kwords (talk) 19:54, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

"sprechen für" means suggest, i.e. it's not conclusive. TompaDompa (talk) 20:01, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

It's a figure of speech when it's the only explanation put forward. 1Kwords (talk) 17:28, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

It means they don't know, but that it's the most likely explanation. Still, it means that they don't know. TompaDompa (talk) 16:43, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Of course they know. Die Welt has an editor who obviously thought this was fit to print. Are you suggesting that anonymous Wikipedia editors know better than professionals? 1Kwords (talk) 05:09, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

What the staff of Die Welt think is irrelevant, because they're not an official source. What matters is the official source cited by Die Welt, and they weren't unequivocal about it. TompaDompa (talk) 06:21, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Die Welt staff opinions rate higher than opinions by anonymous WP editors. 1Kwords (talk) 06:49, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't meet the inclusion criteria. Neither the opinions of Die Welt staff or Wikipedia editors matter. TompaDompa (talk) 06:56, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

The fact is that according to police authorities, it's the only explanation put forward and you're arguing about semantics. 1Kwords (talk) 08:05, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

You may think it's just a question of semantics, but I think it's a question of not misrepresenting what the source says. If we were to attribute classification of Islamic terrorism to the official source (the way we write "Europol classified the attack as jihadist terrorism."), we'd have to write something like "The President of the Saxonian State Criminal Police Office said that the approach and behaviour suggested an ISIL context." I think that makes it pretty clear that it doesn't meet the inclusion criteria. TompaDompa (talk) 12:19, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Prior discussion about 2014 date

Latest comment: 6 years ago24 comments6 people in discussion

This article is weird beacause it's named like a war/battle/conflict, but all it really is is a list of Islamic terrorist attacks in Europe since 2014, with a small context.

And also because this is not a war/conflict, there seems to be no end to the 2014-? part. It could go on for ever, just acting as a 'list' of attacks. Also starting it at 2014 ignores any attacks that happened before that. There is no 'starting point' in this, because 1) it is not an armed conflict and 2) it is not a terror campaign by a single group, but various different people sharing a similar ideology. Someone clearly just chose 2014 because of the rise of ISIL in Iraq and the article has been like that ever since.

I think therefore this article should definitely be restructured with a new name like 'List of Islamic-inspired terrorist attacks in Europe', which would also include anything pre-2014. --Wq639 (talk) 14:49, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, all attacks before 2014 should be included as well. Maybe we should make a seperate article for every century however. Histogenea22 (talk) 15:14, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I think the Overview section is insufficient, primarily it completely fails to explain how these attacks are Islamic and why they are happening in Europe. 1Kwords (talk) 17:45, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

1Kwords, there are linked articles expounding what "Islamic terrorism" and "Islamism" and related subjects are - why would we duplicate those? Why are they happening in Europe? 2nd generation immigrant discontent and alienation? European involvement in middle Eastern conflicts? Anger over support for Israel? Excessively lax western societies? The innately violent nature of Islam? These are among the many reasons given by either perps or commentators.

User:Wq639, the 2014 date was the result of a major bit of WP:OR at this article's creation - which wrongly claimed that a particular 'wave' started at that date. Subsequent discussions and RfCs and AfDs and Move discussions have done little to define the scope to anyone here's satisfaction - but have at least broadly defined inclusion criteria. Why 2014? Why geographical Europe (inc Russia and European Turkey which have their own histories and local causes)?

Histogenea22, it would be almost impossible to include incidents before the early 2000s without extensive WP:OR, since "Islamic terrorism" (as opposed to 'classic' national- group related terrorism such as PLO etc), hardly existed as a term before the early 2000s. Pincrete (talk) 18:54, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

@Wq639: As Pincrete describes, this is a problem that has existed since the creation of the article. Namely, the entire scope is WP:OR and not supported by WP:RELIABLE sources. There was a RfC in 2017 which failed to resolve the scope issue but decided that the title should be changed after "the number of attacks falls back to previous levels" – I'll note that the number of Islamist attacks in 2014 was lower than the numbers in 2007, 2010, and 2012. I previously suggested changing the timeframe to "in the 2010s" as an arbitrary but purely descriptive phrasing that doesn't attach any special significance to any particular year. I'm not overly optimistic about our chances to reach WP:CONSENSUS on the scope, since the earlier RfC didn't and efforts to start a second one didn't get far. Perhaps this will be resolved in a few years when academia catches up (i.e. when a rough academic consensus about the trend exists). Right now, a fairly strong case can be made that this article violates Wikipedia's WP:CONTENTFORKING guideline and that the contents should be merged to List of Islamist terrorist attacks and List of terrorist incidents linked to ISIL. TompaDompa (talk) 17:31, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't share your views. I do agree that the year 2014 should be removed. I don't think the scope of the article is WP:OR, but it would be better if we changed the scope to "Islamic terrorism in Europe" or "Islamic terrorism in Europe in the 21 century". Than it's just an article about all Islamic terrorism on a specific continent (in a specific timeframe). I don't see how that would be orginal research. It's just stating the facts. Histogenea22 (talk) 17:49, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Pincrete duplication is not inherently wrong, if one piece of information is relevant to the scope of several articles. Nothing in guidelines absolutely forbids duplication, in fact there's the opposite: per WP:AUDIENCE articles are to provide enough context. Here are some thought experiments to help you test whether you are setting enough context: Does the article make sense if the reader gets to it as a random page? (Special:Random) Imagine yourself as a layperson in another English-speaking country. Can you figure out what the article is about? Can people tell what the article is about if the first page is printed out and passed around? Would a reader want to follow some of the links? Do sentences still make sense if they can't? That is, the article shold make sense and provide context without the reader being forced to follow the links. 1Kwords (talk) 05:21, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Histogenea22 that the scope be changed to "Islamic terrorism in Europe". According to WP:RS al-Qaeda cells have been established in for instance Spain since the mid 90s. The attacks listed in this article could be added to List of Islamist terrorist attacks and List of terrorist incidents linked to ISIL as well. Also there's nothing stopping a terrorist from being both Islamic and for instance, nationalist or political. It just means that a terrorist attack is within the scope of perhaps two articles. Are terrorists allowed to have only one single motivation? 1Kwords (talk) 05:36, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I disagree about Europe. WP:RELIABLE sources don't use that geographical scope, as I have noted multiple times before. Rather, they use the West. I'm not really opposed to removing the timeframe entirely (the current one is arbitrary and not supported by WP:RELIABLE sources anyway), but it would change the currently rather ISIL/lone wolf-centric focus of the article and would probably necessitate rewriting the prose entirely to reflect that. TompaDompa (talk) 08:45, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

You don't need sources to justify Europe as the scope of an article about Islamic terrorism in Europe. It's just an overview of all islamic terrorist attacks on a certain continent. There's nothing wrong about it. However if you want to change the scope to 'the West' I'm fine with that. Regarding the timeframe, it's not a problem that it changes the ISIL-centric focus since the article should be about all islamic inspired attacks against Europe/the West and not just the ones done by ISIL forces. It's not an Isil related problem, it's an islam related problem. Histogenea22 (talk) 10:21, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

We do need to justify it if we're also going to look at a certain timeframe, but if we remove the timeframe it's not as big of a problem. We run into a couple of problems if we use geographical Europe as the scope even without the timeframe, however. One is that WP:RELIABLE sources looking at trends don't analyse them from a geographical perspective of Europe, but from a geopolitical perspective of the West – so we get a problem if we want to include analysis. Another is that it would group attacks in the European part of Turkey with attacks in France, Germany, and the UK, despite the former having more in common with attacks in the Asian part of Turkey than with the latter and the latter having more in common with attacks in the US than with the former. TompaDompa (talk) 10:45, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

"Another is that it would group attacks in the European part of Turkey with attacks in France, Germany, and the UK, despite the former having more in common with attacks in the Asian part of Turkey than with the latter" Most of East Thrace does not regularly experience terrorist attacks or major conflicts. The exception is the most populous city in the area, Istanbul. See: Category:Terrorist incidents in Istanbul. Dimadick (talk) 10:55, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I support removing the time frame. If attacks are targeting European institutions, targets or Europeans, they are within scope. For instance the 2015 Sousse attacks was directed at European tourists, but the attack happened in Tunisia. 1Kwords (talk) 11:00, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

That seems a bit sketchy to me. I don't think I've seen any WP:RELIABLE source do it like that. Sourcing the target would also be a problem. TompaDompa (talk) 11:14, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

@Pincrete: What do you think about removing the timeframe? TompaDompa (talk) 11:12, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

@TompaDompa:I already supported removing the timeframe. Regarding the problems you see regarding Europe as the scope of this article: It isn't a problem if the article is just an overview of the islamic inspired terrorist attacks in Europe. Even if you want to write an analysis based on sources you can write that the attacks in Europe are 'part of' the islamic attacks on the west/western society as a whole. You don't necessarily have to change the scope of the whole article. I don't see a problem regarding your second point either. The terrorist attacks are already 'grouped' on the motive (islamic) and the geographical area (Europe). We do not have to make any further distinction. @1Kwords:I don't think we should make it more complex. Histogenea22 (talk) 11:39, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

But again, changing the scope to the west as a whole would be fine with me as well. Histogenea22 (talk) 11:41, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Histogenea22 perhaps my suggestion is too complex.

TompaDompa There's a reason this article appears to have a "lone wolf" (they are not really lone wolves if they follow the ideoology of the Islamic State or al-Qaeda) focus and that's because large-scale attacks like in Paris and Mumbai are much easier to detect and thwart by security forces before they happen. In for instance Italy, hundreds of foreign radicalized suspects have been deported, consequently Italy has suffered no major attacks at all despite being closer to the Middle East than say, the UK. It isn't because they haven't tried to mount large-scale attacks. 1Kwords (talk) 13:23, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

@Pincrete:Can you please let us now whether you agree with deleting the timeframe? Also please let us know what you think about the scope: keeping it focussed on Europe or should it be changed into the West. Histogenea22 (talk) 11:36, 8 September 2018 (UTC) WP:SILENCE "He who is silent, when he ought to have spoken and was able to, is taken to agree" Histogenea22 (talk) 12:37, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Brief reply, I would endorse changing the timeframe either to 21st Century - which would probably take us back to the Madrid train bombing as the first major event in Europe. Equally I would not object to Tompa's suggestion of adopting the wholly arbitrary 2010 cut off point - though I think that would be less desirable. I think there would be problems about going back prior to 2000, since the term Is Ter hardly existed before 9/11 in public/police discourse. We would thus be engaged in OR to decide whether events prior to (roughly then), were primarily 'Jihadist' or primarily motivated by regional motives (PLO etc), since the term was not widely used before 9/11.

Geographical scope, I would prefer to see limited to Western Europe - the article was created in response to a European phenomenon, whose countries share many common factors, and it should keep that brief IMO - though Russia and Turkey don't fit into that Wesstern Europe model/history/causes/political systems. Central Europe has - to date - not suffered any significant events, so in/exclusion is academic. Pincrete (talk) 23:23, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Here's a source (the "Fear thy Neighboour" report) using the West as the scope. It could also be useful for adding material to this article. Also I don't think it makes sense to limit to 21st century, there are sources which claim al-Qaeda cells were present in Spain in the mid 90s - why exclude that? 1Kwords (talk) 05:23, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately I didn't have much time during the last few weeks. I would like to continue this dicussion however. I think it's best that we seperate the discussion about the geographical scope from the timeframe discussion. I don't think there is much consensus on the former discussion. There is consensus however that the current timeframe should be changed. Furthermore 4 out of 5 participants in this discussion have said the timeframe should be removed entirely or have said that they wouldn't opposed to removing it (Wq639, 1Kwords, TompaDompa & myself). Only Pincrete said he thinks events before the 2000 shouldn't be included and would prefer to change the timeframe in "21st century". Since WP:CON "does not mean unanimity" I propose we remove the timeframe entirely. Histogenea22 (talk) 12:23, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

The page would then have to be moved, and since there isn't unanimous agreement such a move would have to be considered potentially controversial. Hence, it would necessitate a WP:RM/CM. TompaDompa (talk) 12:45, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Well in that case, I'd say someone launch a move request now then. It's already clear that the majority in this section agree with removing the timeframe. Geographically I would probably support 'Western Europe' in the title (because East hasn't had significant attacks, excluding transcontinental Russia and Turkey), but we can deal with that later. --Wq639 (talk) 14:46, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Dutch terror plot

Latest comment: 6 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion

Can someone also look into this terror plot in the Netherlands. There a plenty good Dutch sources but the international press didn't pick it up very well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Histogenea22 (talk • contribs) 15:55, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

TompaDompa could you look into this? It's best that you add this yourself, it's not so much more work for you since you ususally go through the sources for each & every plot. Finding & checking the sources is the hard part. 1Kwords (talk) 16:54, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

@TompaDompa: please check. Much appreciated if you do. 1Kwords (talk) 19:56, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

@TompaDompa: Regarding your remark here. I think the source is pretty clear. However, Dutch sources are even more specific and there is no question about the motive at all. "Ook de rechtbank concludeert dat A. van plan was een aanslag te plegen. A. zou 'actief zoeken naar, verschaffen en voorhanden hebben van informatie over het radicale, extremistische gedachtegoed van de gewapende jihadstrijd." Translation: "The court also concludes that A. was planning to carry out an attack: A. would 'actively seek, provide and have information about the radical, extremist ideology of the armed jihad." Source. Histogenea22 (talk) 21:50, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

@TompaDompa: Isn't it also relevant to note that the police found a Kalashnikov with armor-piercing ammunition and a significant amount of illegal fireworks in the storage space of his home? Histogenea22 (talk) 11:51, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

That they were found isn't relevant in and of itself. What might be relevant is if they were intended to be used in the planned attack, which the source doesn't explicitly say. TompaDompa (talk) 12:39, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

He is convicted on three counts. One count was that he was illegally in the possesion of an AK47 and armor-piercing ammunition intented as a preparation for a terrorist attack [2]. Histogenea22 (talk) 13:16, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

I see. Per WP:BLPPRIMARY, Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person, so we need a secondary source to be able to add it to the page. TompaDompa (talk) 13:29, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

source Histogenea22 (talk) 14:38, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

2014 until... what?

Latest comment: 6 years ago19 comments8 people in discussion

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved. See general agreement to remove the date-range qualifier. As editors have noted, that alters the scope of this article, which will require expansion and probable restructuring. Also see that the new title has served as a redirect to Islamic terrorism#Europe for four years, so this becomes the "main article" for that targeted section. Other important issues raised, such as "Islamic → Islamist" and the geographic scope, may be discussed separately to garner consensus. Have a Great Day and Happy Publishing! (nac by page mover) Paine Ellsworth ^put'r there 02:05, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present) → Islamic terrorism in Europe – The timeframe in the name of the article isn't supported by WP:RELIABLE sources and should therefor be removed according to 4 out of 5 Wikipedians in the dicussion on the talkpage. Islamic terrorism hasn't started in 2014, the number of Islamist attacks in 2014 was for example lower than the numbers in 2007, 2010, and 2012 and major attacks happened before 2014, most notably are the 2004 Madrid train bombings and the 7 July 2005 London bombings. When the timeframe is removed the article will become a complete overview of all Islamic terrorism in Europe. Histogenea22 (talk) 14:20, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

nb see prior discussion below. Pincrete (talk) 21:35, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Comment I agree that date is arbitary and unhelpful. I also think geographic scope (Geographic Europe, inc. Russia and European Turkey) is arbitary and not covered by sources. Personally I would favour W. Europe - defined as European Community (+?). Pincrete (talk) 21:41, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

CommentThis discussion is about the timeframe (in the name) of the article not about the geographical scope. Please stay on topic. Histogenea22 (talk) 10:45, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

It makes sense to TRY to establish all elements of the article scope - if that cannot be achieved, then they can be dealt with independently of each other. Pincrete (talk) 17:52, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

That has already been tried numerous times, therefore we can better fix one problem at a time. Histogenea22 (talk) 18:27, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Imho it makes sense to try the easiest issue first, if we can't reach consensus on the easier issue and the issue several editors seem to agree upon, having progress on this issue combined with a harder issue seems very unlikely to succeed. This should be a collaborative effort, why not collaborate on issue where editors agree? 1Kwords (talk) 21:23, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Support I support removing the time frame. I agree with Histogenea22 that the geographical scope is beyond the scope of this requested move. 1Kwords (talk) 04:48, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Comment As has been noted multiple times before (such as here, here, here, and here), the current scope is not supported by WP:Reliable sources and as such constitutes WP:OR. There is a fairly strong case to be made that the article should be WP:AfD'd as a WP:POVFORK of List of Islamist terrorist attacks (primarily; also List of terrorist incidents linked to ISIL and a few others). The proposed removal of the timeframe could conceivably instead turn this into a valid WP:Summary style fork of Islamic terrorism. I have some doubts that such a change would suffice, however, much due to concerns about the geographic scope. TompaDompa (talk) 07:55, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

So you support removal of the time frame? It is good if we can deal with one issue at a time. 1Kwords (talk) 10:10, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Comment Tompa You already said on 7 September "We do need to justify it if we're also going to look at a certain timeframe, but if we remove the timeframe it's not as big of a problem." on the same day you also said: "I'm not really opposed to removing the timeframe entirely (the current one is arbitrary and not supported by WP:RELIABLE sources anyway)". Based on your earlier comments it makes a lot of sense to remove the timeframe from the title, as others has said as well. We choose to first solve the timeframe issue because everybody agrees that the current timeframe should be removed. There isn't consensus on the geographical scope yet and therefore it's better that we solve this issue first. Histogenea22 (talk) 12:52, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Qualified Support, with comment This page is still here? I can't quite… work out how to do my first page move. Clearly the current title is arcane and arbitrary, clearly there is consensus for the time frame to be changed, there seems to be a kind of consensus developing for around 2000 onwards when at least the language emerged, as did significant incidents and a wider awareness. Events prior could be addressed in the article as antecedents.

While we're about it, "Islamist" is the correct term we should use in the title; the fact that a majority of sources get their semantics wrong does not mean we should compound their error by mis-naming an article. The title is not a quote. And surely "Islamist" is the key to the article scope rather than a random date. The PLO and others happened to be muslim, sure, but their terrorist activities were political in nature and stated as such. However political the aims of al Quaeda and ISIS may or may not be, their stated aims, motivation, and rhetoric are "religious" - Islamist.

I propose move to "Islamist terrorism in Europe". Once done we can see if "in Europe" stands up to scrutiny or needs amending. Captainllama (talk) 22:36, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree that 'Islamist' is more accurate, and thus preferable - although sources use the term interchangably with 'Is ter.' and 'Jihadist ter.'. Pincrete (talk) 17:39, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

As stated, the title is not a quote and should be accurate irrespective of (some) sources semantic variances. Captainllama (talk) 20:52, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Support removing the timeframe and changing to "Islamist" rather than "Islamic". Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:50, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Oppose - the article refers to the latest wave of Islamic terrorism in Europe, which coincides with the emergence of Islamic State group in 2014. See Deaths from terrorism in Europe have spiked since 2014 for example"Islamist terrorism in Europe" (dibra) 13:09, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Greyshark09 your assertion would be part of the article and is in no way compromised by the title "Islamist terrorism in Europe"

The objection would make sense ONLY if the article confined itself to IS directed - or tangibly inspired events. It doesn't make sense where there is no tangible IS link to the event. IS are the main inspiration for post late-2014 events, but it would be WP:OR to link them to all such events. Pincrete (talk) 09:12, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Comment Histogenea22 seven days have passed and the general consensus is in favour of removing the time frame, even if some editors think other issues should be prioritized they too, fundamentally, agrees (now or has in the past) upon removing the time frame. How shall we proceed? 1Kwords (talk) 18:30, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.