Talk:Islamic terrorism in Europe

Original research and lots of factual errors

Folks, this article is heavily OR. I just went through the German cases and removed those where investigators ruled out terrorism and removed them from the list. Terrorism is a well defined concept and you can not link any knife attack by a mentally unstable person to terrorism (even if the shout Allahu Akbar). Especially if investigators rule this out. While doing this, i corrected quiet a bunch of factual errors. I got tired of this but could imagine that the non German cases are as speculative an erronous as the German ones. LucLeTruc (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

LucLeTruc, see my comment in 'move discussion above. Pincrete (talk) 02:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

This really seems like a proper Don Quichote crusade ;-). LucLeTruc (talk) 02:29, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Some incidents are put up here without any confirmation or hint by the investigators of motive. That is against the rules and purely OR. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 20:26, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Westminster attack

User:Pilch 51 recently added back the 2017 Westminster attack even though the motive and terror links ate still under investigation. There's even notba single hint whether he was cartuing out the attack for religious motives. While the perpetrator may have intrest in Islamism, adding it as an Islamism terrorism attack is self-interpertation and original research (OR). This has been done by some editors in many cases where something is added as an Islamist attack without any confirmation of the motive or terror links sometimes. We cannot add anything by our own even if we think it is so or must be so. That is now allowed. We have to wait specifically for anything about the motive or whether he had any terror links. If there is then add it, there is no problem. But there should be a proper procedure. Rules must be followed always. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 18:28, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

2016 Hamburg stabbing

I recognise ISIL claimed responsibility for this, and so you would expect it had some relation to Islamism or religion. However, having read the article for the case I can't seem to find anything overtly islamist about it, other than the fact the perpetrator was of Middle Eastern origin, and so likely muslim. How do we know this is terroristic in nature? I recognise that I.S don't claim crimes that don't have an islamist motive, but there is not independent evidence suggesting the perp was inspired by Islamic extremism.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150112005126/http://www.startribune.com/world/288018961.html to http://www.startribune.com/world/288018961.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:44, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

London 27 April

@82.33.139.205: The source for the man carrying knives in London on 27 April says nothing about islamist motives. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:13, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Not Turkey?

See 2017 Istanbul nightclub shooting and 2016 Atatürk Airport attack. Beshogur (talk) 19:46, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with @Beshogur:. The attacks in Istanbul should be mentioned. But I'm afraid that most editors will not agree. They reluctantly included Russia in the article, let alone Turkey. --TonyaJaneMelbourne (talk) 09:13, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I think that it should be not included, because a) Turkey is not part of Europe (for the most part) and b) should have (or maybe does have?) its own article for Turkey vs Islamic Terrorism. This is in particular because sometimes shelling of Turkish cities from Syria by ISIS occurs, and because in Turkey there are other terrorist attacks, for example by the PKK/Kurds, plus the alleged terrorism of the Gülen people. Furthermore, there have been reports of turkish support for ISIS, which obviously would be needed to be stated in such an article. --Tscherpownik (talk) 22:35, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

You may as well exclude Russia from the article with same reasons. In addition, not all Islamist attacks in Europe is ISIL, see 2015 Île-de-France attacks and 2017 Saint Petersburg Metro bombing (in both attacks al-Qaeda is responsible), so you as well may exclude these attacks from the article too. I think if attack took place on European soil and has Islamist roots, the attack should be mentioned in the article. 2017 Istanbul nightclub shooting and 2016 Atatürk Airport attack took place in Instanbul (in most European city of Turkey), also ISIL is responsible for attacks. Mention of the attacks in the European part of Turkey is a good idea. --TonyaJaneMelbourne (talk) 18:18, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Remove Commanders and leaders

I think we should remove the ′Commanders and leaders′ section. It completly destroys the readability of the article. I have never seen a Wikipedia article with that much blank space. --Arcadius Romanus (talk) 21:21, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

@Arcadius Romanus: I made those sections collapsible to save space. They can of course still be removed if you don't think that information should be there because it doesn't belong, but the issue of blank space should be solved. TompaDompa (talk) 22:24, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, that is the perfect solution. --Arcadius Romanus (talk) 18:54, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Title change

The title of this article should be changed to "Sunni Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014-present)", as Shia, Sufi and Ahmadiyya Muslims have nothing to do with it. All the organizations and individuals behind it, belong to the fundamentalist Sunni movements of Salafism/Wahhabism.--203.220.72.109 (talk) 06:09, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I think Salafi Jihadism in Europe (2014–present) would be well better than your suggestion - focusing only on Salafist ideology, which is not the mainstream of Sunni Islam, but is branch of it.GreyShark (dibra) 06:40, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I think its a better idea to change it. Islamic terrorist attacks happened since 1985 in Europe. Supreme Dragon (talk) 15:13, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

It is very hard to find sources were officials state that the attacker was inspired by Salafi Jihadism. You would need to go trough every single incident and check if it was salafi inspired. What about non salafi incidents? Why make things so complicated? Also it is hard to argue that only salafis commit terror attacks when only 64% of Muslims in France distance themself clearly from terror attacks against civilians (http://pewresearch.org/files/old-assets/pdf/muslim-americans.pdf#page=97). The number of actual salafis is much lower (in Germany ~7500). --Arcadius Romanus (talk) 19:06, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Mind pointing out to non Salafi Muslim terrorist attacks in Europe from 2014- onwards? All of them were carried out by the fundamentalist Sunnis, that is Salafi jihadists. Shias, Sufis or Ahmadis don't engage in that kind of stuff. Please, don't try to twist things. --203.220.72.109 (talk) 13:40, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 25 May 2017

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.

The result of the move request was: Not moved - There was a strong opposition to the proposed move. (non-admin closure) Yashovardhan (talk) 17:14, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

---

Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present) → Islamic terrorism in Europe – This page needs to be renamed because the first Islamic terrorist attack that happened in European soil was in 1985 in Spain. Supreme Dragon (talk) 15:13, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Oppose This article is about the rise in 2014 and the relation to ISIL. I agree with you that we should have a complet list with all incidents in Europe. But this should be a new article/list. --Arcadius Romanus (talk) 19:11, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose I think that it's great idea to make article about ALL Islamic terrorist incidents in Europe. But this article's about the rise of Islamic terrorism in Europe as part of spillover of the Syrian Civil War. --TonyaJaneMelbourne (talk) 19:49, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Totally agree with Arcadius Romanus and TonyaJaneMelbourne. There is undeniably a whole other level in terrorism since ISIS controls large parts of Iraq and Syria. --Tscherpownik (talk) 22:38, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose for same reasons as stated above. Wykx (talk) 22:29, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

---

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.

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)

Manchester attack inclusion?

So I was wondering, with Westminister being in, should we add Manchester to the page? clearly a terrorist act, with plans to terrorise concert goers and it involves a large network of people. ISIS claims responsibility, though this is not definite, the man is from Libya, which does have some ISIS factions. Factsoverfeelings (talk) 23:46, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, both attacks (and other ones) are specifically linked to the rise of Islamic and ISIS terrorism by CNN here: [1]. User2534 (talk) 17:29, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 29 May 2017

Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present) → Islamist terrorism in Europe (2014–present) – I personally think this name is better because these attacks are made by Islamists. For example: List of Islamist terrorist attacks Beshogur (talk) 18:31, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with

• Weak support - indeed the proposed name is better, though not the best possible.GreyShark (dibra) 05:58, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support as Islamist is a more accurate and meaningful description. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:16, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
• Strong Support per EvergreenFir, Islamist is a lot more accurate than Islamic. Should also be moved because the current title was opposed in an RfC but was then moved independently and without consensus by another user. - SantiLak (talk) 23:19, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
• Very Strong Support Have a look at Wiktionary's own definitions of the two words. "Islamic" means pertaining to or deriving from the religion of Islam or its Muslim adherents. "Islamist" has many meanings, the most relevant here being that relating to fundamentalism in Islam. A Muslim who commits an act of terror may not be an Islamist, for example a Muslim who commits an act of terror to further a political goal unrelated to fundamentalist Islam, like secessionism or far left/right causes. Therefore an article about Islamic terror would actually be a catalogue of ALL acts of terror committed by Muslims or by anyone taking any inspiration from Islamic culture or Koranic scripture. Simply as a matter of definition and logic, the correct name for an article cataloguing terror attacks inspired by fundamentalist interpretations of Islam must be "Islamist". 80.42.65.252 (talk) 09:41, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - those who are carrying out the attacks call themselves Islamic, not Islamist. For instance it is the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, not the Islamist State of Iraq and the Levant. Similarly, in reference to their historical predecessors, we refer to the Muslim conquest of Persia, Muslim conquest of the Maghreb, Muslim conquest of Egypt, etc. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, who leads the organisation, has a BA in Islamic Studies from the Iraq University, so it is kind of artificial distinction. Claíomh Solais (talk) 22:39, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

What they call themselves shouldn't determine what the title is, what they actually specifically are is what should determine what the title is. They are Islamists and as such we should call the wave of terror that, it's not a political issue, it's an encyclopedic issue. Also as to your examples of those conquests, they were indeed Muslim conquests, but they were during the time of Abu Bakr, as in the 7th century, right when Islam was founded and was a cohesive group, not 1400 years later when it is what it is today. -SantiLak (talk) 23:51, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

To cite a similar example, North Korea officially calls itself the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea", a cynically false description. Conflating Islamic and Islamist on the grounds that a pariah Islamist group like ISIL uses the word "Islamic" in their official name makes no sense. Uncle Roy (talk) 09:39, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose, changing the title would mean changing something that is not wrong. Islamism and Islamic Terrorism is basically the same. --Tscherpownik (talk) 03:27, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
• Very strong oppose Wikipedia is not the place for political correctness. You can change the title, but the essence will not change.--TonyaJaneMelbourne (talk) 08:27, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support - This is nothing do with Political Correctness, this is about an accurate and neutral title. Islamist is accurate, Islamic is POV pushing. Sport and politics (talk) 08:56, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
• Strong support per User:Sport and politics. Until Wikipedia merges the Islamism and Islam articles on the grounds that they're "basically the same", we need to be consistent with article names. Uncle Roy (talk) 09:39, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
• Strong support per nom-there is a shade of difference here.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 10:13, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
• Weak oppose Sorry, I don't buy the proposition that the present title is PoV-pushing anymore than I would buy the proposition that readers think that 'Irish', (or 'Palestinian' or 'Basque' or 'right-wing') is synonymous with 'Irish terrorism'. Secondly 'Islamist' is not the term being used by most authorities and RS, even though it might be ideologically more precise. This list IMO has gigantic PoV problems, mostly to do with not having any clear criteria for inclusion (any incident which could possibly be terrorism according to a single poor source seems to make it here, based largely on subjective editorial criteria and with zero 'qualification' or attribution) but fixing the present title is 'window dressing' IMO. Pincrete (talk) 14:44, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
• Very Strong Opposition - If one's goal is to stay true to facts, truth, and veracity, then there can not exist a better term than - Islamic terrorism.

1] What exactly are the intentions of the ones trying to gloss over the fact that Islamic terrorism is Islamic? Dubious. Any person with even a little regard for the truth, would consider it unfathomable to even think about labelling them - Islamist, and not Islamic.

2] When the ones committing the attacks themselves call themselves Islamic, then what exactly gives us the authority to contradict them? And if we are to dispute them, we can do so only through the evidence in the doctrine, which if we try, we will all reach the conclusion that it is erroneous, unethical and not to mention, dishonest, to label them as - Islamist, and not Islamic

3] To label them Islamist, is to force-create a separate category, in which to dump them, thereby distracting from the true nature of the issue, and thus is unscrupulous, wrong, and indeed, deceitful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.196.180.89 (talk) 14:58, 4 June 2017 (UTC) — [[User:112.196.180.89]|112.196.180.89]]] ([[User talk:112.196.180.89]|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/112.196.180.89]|contribs]]) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Discussion

• I think Wave of Terror in Europe is more neutral than Islamic or Islamist terrorism in Europe --TonyaJaneMelbourne (talk) 09:32, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Wave of terror was one of the previous names of the article but consensus decided to move it to Terrorism in Europe (2014–present), yet without consensus and despite the discussion, other users proceeded to move it to Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present) as well as back to Wave of Terrorism before it was moved back to its current title. Islamist terrorism in Europe (2014–present) is a neutral as well as accurate description of the wave of terrorism while Islamic isn't and "Wave of Terror" appears to differ too much from general MoS when it comes to the naming of articles relating to events such as these. - SantiLak (talk) 09:45, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Inclusion of incidents, which are not terrorism

There is inclusion on this list of items, which are not terrorism. These items, are just crimes, or incidents, with no actual proven link to terrorism. Some of the items listed are also not notable and are just news reporting of events. This fails a number of wikipedia standards on synthesis of information, original research, not being a news site, being reliable and verified in terms of information sourcing ad accuracy, and having a neutral point of view.
This article and wikipedia is not a mass repository of events, and inclusion must meet Wikipedia standards, listing all and sundry must be avoided. Sport and politics (talk) 08:54, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

As long as you just list policies and present no examples Sport and politics, it could just be a pointless claim. Alexpl (talk) 09:42, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia works by showing that inclusion is warranted, and not that inclusion is not warranted. The removed events are examples of the issues which are contained in the above. One Imam being stabbed is not terrorism, events with the description of 'alleged' links to terrorism, and internal prison goings on, are not terrorist events. Domestic situations between neighbours, are also not terrorism. Attacks by individuals who are mentally ill are not terrorism, attacks by individuals on police are also not terrorism, as these could very easily be a dislike of the police, and the same goes for the military. There needs to be a strong evidence base for inclusion or it is part of the multitude of problems listed above. 14:46, 4 June 2017 (UTC)