Talk:Terrorism in Europe

This article was nominated for deletion on 17 February 2014 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Crime and Criminal Biography: Terrorism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Terrorism task force (assessed as Low-importance). European Union Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject European Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the European Union on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European UnionWikipedia:WikiProject European UnionTemplate:WikiProject European UnionEuropean Union articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Europe Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Wikipedia.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The contents of the Terrorism in Italy page were merged into Terrorism in Europe. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

Please add Munich massacre Arnoutf (talk) 14:00, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia redirects searches of "terrorism in europe" to this page wich is problematic since europe is a continent comprised by a number of countries currently not in the union.

Also there seems to be a very heavy focus on leftist/islamist attacks that are noted here when there are a large number of neo-fascist/nazi and separatist/conservative/christian/islamophobe-attacks that could fall into the category.

Examples from Sweden: Car bombing of two journalists in Nacka 1999 Sweden by neo-nazi extremists, Murder of leftist Björn Söderberg 1999 by neo-nazis, murder of two police officers in Malexander by neo-nazi bank robbers financing the "national socialist" revolution and political activities 1999. Lone wolf/neo-nazi attack in school in Trollhättan Sweden 3 dead 2015.

Im sure the list goes on for all countries.

/MX

You won't win this argument by adding information to the article that is beyond its scope. Vandalizing an article is not a good way to convince anyone of your opinions. Ratemonth (talk) 03:51, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ratemonth! my adding the Norway attacks again was before i found this discussion page. I apologize for my mistake. Could we now discuss the points i have lifted? /MX — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.247.9.84 (talk) 06:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC) Just letting everyone in this discussion know that i have registred a user account and will be using it henceforth Flowerywallpaper (talk) 06:20, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I strongly endorse changing the page's title to "Terrorism in Europe" and include attacks in Norway as well as Swizerland (and the UK once they leave). /H Jul 15 2016

Hasn't been updated in 7 months or so. It's also become rather long and unwieldy to navigate. Any suggestions? Alt lys er svunnet hen (talk) 02:55, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I updated it a week ago with attack on the Jewish museum in Brussels. - 19 January 2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:1812:6:db00:449c:f186:69a2:3709 (talk)

• 1. I think this article really should be split back into individual articles for each country (especially if they've seen multiple terrorist attacks, like France, Italy, Spain, and Germany). Non-EU countries like Switzerland are also redirected here. There appears to have been no discussion about combining all these countries' terrorism articles into one, and one user did it unilaterally.
• 2. Italy's coat of arms is inaccurate: they use an emblem with a cog and olive branches.

Paris1127 (talk) 15:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's useful to have a pan-European comparison article for comparison purposes. Especially for smaller member states there may not be a lot of context to justify a single article. We could limit the number of incidents listed here, but I do think it's useful. Not everything has to be broken down exclusively to the national level. Peregrine981 (talk) 22:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I'm suggesting keeping the article for the smaller states and then spinning off the nations that have seen multiple terrorist attacks, like France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK. Those countries had their own articles at one time. The page would then have "See Terrorism in France", for example. However, countries that are not in the EU should not be listed/redirected here. Paris1127 (talk) 22:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why we can't have parallel national + international articles. Terrorist attacks are often discussed in a European context, and security is an area of European cooperation. This article needs to be cleaned up, but I think it is certainly useful to have an article comparing major terrorist attacks in a pan-European context. I think it is debatable whether it would best to make an article only for EU countries or for all of Europe. Peregrine981 (talk) 21:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be opposed to parallel articles. Paris1127 (talk) 00:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I think that's the best solution. In the meantime this article needs some serious maintenance. I'll try to look into it. Peregrine981 (talk) 17:56, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Paris1127 (talk) 07:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why the editors are not using the standard flags of the countries listed? 203.111.224.64 (talk) 14:34, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

203.111.224.64, flags are generally overused on Wikipedia (WP). I imagine there has been discussion or consensus (somewhere) to use the coat of arms 'symbols' instead. 220 of ^Borg 07:50, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually the page was only created in February 2014, and without national flags is how it was started. It appears that later editors have maintained the original format. There doesn't seem to be any overwhelming need to change it. - 220 of ^Borg 08:46, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I totally disagree with the use of national coat of arms in this article (and similar articles). The purpose of the image accompanying the name of the country is not to embellish the article, but to help in the identification of the countries (make that identification more intuitive). National flags are usually familiar to readers (due precisely to their extensive use), so they accomplish that goal. Coat of arms are not that familiar — they just clutter the chart. Gazilion (talk) 00:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    +1 Gazilion. --Rinaku (t · c) 13:24, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The cities largely only have arms, and there is no need to treat countries differently. Arms are completely valid state symbols. Ssolbergj (talk) 21:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• While they may be valid, I'd wager less than 5% of readers can identify any of them. I scripted a change to replace the country coats of arms with flags, which are mostly instantly recognizable by anyone with a school education, but Ssolbergj reverted it. Justifying my restoration here. Alex-weej —Preceding undated comment added 16:56, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The status quo is in fact to have coats of arms, and you must try to establish a consensus here before your make a WP:bold change. Justifying in one sentence, without waiting for more comments, is bad practice on wikipedia. Just because flags generally are overused on wikipedia does not mean that they always have to be used. -Ssolbergj (talk) 13:56, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The status quo is unnecessarily confusing. There is no reason to use coats of arms. It's not just the average user who doesn't know them, it's almost every single person in the world who doesn't know them. Ratemonth (talk) 14:11, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus to use coats of arms and there is no reason at all to use them. Anyone reverting back to them is edit warring. Ratemonth (talk) 17:42, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why are there so few listings for the UK? There were hundreds of attacks in the UK, Ireland and Germany related to the Troubles but I don't see any in the list. Did I miss something? I know that including all IRA/UVF/INLA, etc. attacks in the British Isles or all ETA attacks in Spain and the Basque Country would make the list much longer but where is the rationale for not at least including some of them?--58.37.44.171 (talk) 10:36, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's only one actually (7 July 2005 London bombings), but UK/Britain has it's own page/s List of terrorist incidents in Great Britain and also List of terrorist incidents in London in the "See also" section, See also List of (non-state) terrorist incidents. It's possible some pages were split off from this page, or more likely this page was created later. - 220 of ^Borg 08:31, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I just noticed the page was only created in February 2014, so there may be missing incidents. 220 of ^Borg 08:36, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of missing incidents, including Pan Am Flight 103. Martin Blank (talk) 23:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The absence of any terrorist attacks in Britain or Ireland connected to the Northern Ireland 'Troubles' is curious. Where are the Dublin and Monaghan bombings for example. I note the Great Britain page referred to above doesn't include Northern Ireland attacks (e.g. Omagh Bombing). Is it the view that these were not terrorist attacks but part of an ongoing war? Ccferrie (talk) 09:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would make sense to move this page to "terrorism in mainland Europe", Troubles-related incidents can stay on a separate page, especially as there would be constant arguments over what was and wasn't terrorism in Northern ireland. Debbiesw (talk) 20:10, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to Debbiesw, I think if we have a list, we include everything and Troubles-related incidents are clearly described as terrorism on other Wikipedia articles, so should be here too. I suggest everything in List of bombings during the Northern Ireland Troubles and peace process, for starters, should be here. Bondegezou (talk) 10:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I note, for example, that articles like List of terrorist incidents in 1975 include Troubles-related incidents. Bondegezou (talk) 11:19, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Minor incidents like 2011 Norway attacks aren't mentioned here, so it may seem this article is rather outdated… Rkarlsba (talk) 22:03, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Norway is not an EU member. -Ssolbergj (talk) 21:23, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the search "terrorism in europe" redirects to this page. Either remove the redirect or include countries on the continent of europe. /MX

I agree. This page title should be changed to Terrorism in Europe and include Norway as well as Swizerland (and the UK once they leave). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historiskan1 (talk • contribs) 11:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thy--SvenAERTS (talk) 15:22, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Passengers. - Ssolbergj (talk) 12:46, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are several incidents in the list that don't fit the given categories (2016 Munich shooting, 2012 Brindisi school bombing). If we include the Munich shooting we open the door for all cases of rampage. Maybe we should only add incidents that included a bombing and an unknown or criminal motive. I personally would exclude suicidal rampages. Arcadius Romanus (talk) 22:14, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article lists suspected Islamic terrorist attacks as Islamic terrorists attacks, even though they have not been confirmed as such. Shouldn't there be a clarification that some of the incidents do not have a confirmed motive? Beejsterb (talk) 03:43, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not very good. Every attacks without a determined motive is listed as "Islamic", and many terrorist attacks, such as the Sweden school attack, are not even on here. There's also the strange redirect from Europe. Beejsterb (talk) 06:10, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you list the attacks that you thing are wrongfully labelled as Islamic? If you think attacks are missing why don't you start adding attacks?

The Essen attack is well known to be an Islamic attack: Source ; Source 2 Arcadius Romanus (talk) 09:19, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the attacks listed have a motivation that is still under investigation, yet they are listed as "Islamic". Note the most recent event listed does not have a confirmed motivation, yet it is listen as Islamic. It is like every incident that does not have a clear motivation is automatically listed as "Islamic".Beejsterb (talk) 06:41, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Atatürk Airport attack should be included 212.253.113.71 (talk) 14:34, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know that redirect is confusing. We need to deal with that. But the issue is that you can't add single attacks to the See also list. If we would add any major attack to the See also list it would make it way to long. It is for articles that a related to this topic but are were not mentioned early in this article. That is why we have a table for specific attacks. The article is called Terrorism in the European Union so attacks outside the EU don't belong to the list. That Terrorism in Europe redirects to this article doesn't change the fact. Since there is no dedicated list for Europe it is better to redirect to this article than to show an empty page.

So please stop adding the Atatürk attack to this article as long as it called Terrorism in the European Union. You are free to start the process of changing the name. Arcadius Romanus (talk) 20:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I typed Terrorism in Europe and I was re-directed to this page. In this way we cannot fact-check terrorist attacks in non EU countries like Russia, Norway and Turkey, where terrorist attacks have occurred. Furthermore, the UK will soon abandon the EU, therefore I propose that the title be changed to Terrorism in Europe, also because I personally don't see the connection between the EU and terrorism, perhaps there could be within NATO countries, but that would include North-American countries as well and exclude Russia.(Koantao (talk) 01:30, 25 July 2016 (UTC))[reply]

The connection is that the sections Prevention and History are based on information from Europool. Maybe we "outsource" the list to "List of terror attacks in Europe" and keep this article. Arcadius Romanus (talk) 09:24, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: The EU and Europe are two different things. Beejsterb (talk) 06:01, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is this support for the Atatürk attack or the renaming of the article? Arcadius Romanus (talk) 09:24, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support to get rid of the redirect.Beejsterb (talk) 06:38, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've redirected the page Wave of Terror in Europe, which seems to have been merely a partial content fork of this article, to point here. The term "Wave of Terror" is not in wide use to describe these events; cherry-picking quotations to try to make it so is WP:OR. -- Markshale (talk) 08:28, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Beejsterb: @Tavix: This page has been moved from Terrorism in the European Union to "Terrorism in Europe" without a requested move, but only with a discussion over the redirect "Terrorism in Europe" (which I missed). The consensus there was unclear, and a requested move should have been started instead. The new title is problematic: it hugely expands the scope of this article, since now terrorist attacks in countries like Russia and Turkey should be included, and more importantly the temporal scope goes back a century: unlike the EU and its predecessors, which were born in 1951, "terrorism in Europe" includes terrorism in European states since the XIX century. Having an article about Terrorism in the European Union made sense because it can rely on EUROPOL statistics, whereas "Terrorism in Europe" is too broad in my opinion, and articles about single states would be better. Anyway, the two subjects are clearly distinct and both can have an article, but this article currently covers only Terrorism in the European Union, and another article should be started to cover Terrorism in Europe (or otherwise this article should be significantly re-written). --Nykterinos (talk) 22:31, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to start a requested move if you feel it will result in a stronger consensus. Thanks, -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:35, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have previously raised this issue and will raise it again now that the article has been moved. A distinction needs to be made between attacks with a suspected motivation and attacks with a confirmed motivation. When a perpetrator directly states his motivation for the attack, then the attack is categorized. When they do not, then an investigator is launched to find out the motive. Many of the recent attacks listed here that are suspected as Islamic are listed as simply "Islamic". Again, we must somehow distinguish between the two. Either we can have a different colour for suspected attacks, or we remove them altogether. I am going to add the 2016 Munich shooting as the perpetrator had a suspected motivation that is still under investigation, just like many of the other incidents here. I hope this addition can raise attention to this ignored issue. Beejsterb (talk) 23:15, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To add an incident simply because the motive is still under investigation is not a really good reason to do so. WP:OR exists for things like this. Parsley Man (talk) 01:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the point of my argument. A lot of the incidents included here are still under investigation, yet the Islamic ones under investigation are always included. This is why I'm including other ones, because they are also under investigation and are suspected terrorist attacks. Beejsterb (talk) 02:03, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Islamic or not, this fine line needs to apply with all attacks. I'm not sure how all those attacks managed to slip under the radar, but I haven't done anything else because I'm not sure what else to do (my specialty is attacks that occur in Western countries like the U.S. and in Europe). But if you know of any attacks that shouldn't be on here, Islamic or otherwise, think you could remove them as well? Parsley Man (talk) 03:42, 2 September 2016 (UTC

If I do my edit gets reverted. Whatever I do to try to resolve the neutrality issue, my edit gets reverted. Beejsterb (talk) 01:52, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then tell the users responsible for the reversions to discuss it on the talk page first. If this fails to come through, then use WP:ANI and/or WP:AN3RR and/or WP:VPP and/or whatever else is necessary. But a fear of getting the edits reverted is not really a sound excuse to simply revert my edits. It's more akin to surrendering to this WP:POV crap. Parsley Man (talk) 07:31, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any reasons to randomly delete incidents which are clearly related to Islamistic terrorism in the media AND by officials, especially Nice, Essen, and Ansbach. In all of those cases the relation is more than obvious.--Gerry1214 (talk) 08:36, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But there's a problem posed by this. If we are going to easily add in such incidents based on this rhetoric, it would prompt other attacks (Islamic or not) to be added into terrorism-related lists when they are either not actually terrorist attacks or the distinction is either sketchy or unconfirmed. I will bring this to WP:VPP today. Parsley Man (talk) 17:11, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's a much greater problem: If we don't write what the majority of reputable sources tell, we start to construct our own reality instead of following the sources. Terrorism is what is called terrorism by the reputable sources and the officials speaking via those. So this is not a question of what we discuss, but what is written and found out by others.--Gerry1214 (talk) 17:23, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still taking it to VPP. Some attacks may be easier to classify than others, but the confusion and variety of opinion is still present and a clear distinction should be addressed. Parsley Man (talk) 17:39, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may do what you want, but I doubt that it will bring us much forward. It won't change our task to look into the sources and use them as the decisive guideline. And if an article about an incident calls it terrorism based on the sources, it should be listed here, regardless if it's islamistic or of other origin. This is just an issue of presenting the information. --Gerry1214 (talk) 17:47, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You see, there's my actual problem, because I had seen this before with the 2016 Ohio machete attack: WP:RS was saying the incident was being investigated as a possible terrorist attack, but users seemed to forget the "possible" part and classified it as a terrorist attack. Wording is very key to how Wikipedia presents its articles, and there's a WP:OR concern if we jump at the chance to classify certain attacks as terrorism even though RS seems to suggest, at the very least, open-endedness in that angle. Parsley Man (talk) 17:53, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. If there is absolutely no clear statement by an official and sources are mixed, we should indeed be careful and we should wait before adding it. But e.g. in the case of the 2016 Ansbach bombing there is a clear statement by the Interior Minister in charge, so we should add it. The article itself can help us in such cases.--Gerry1214 (talk) 18:00, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I finally got it up on VPP if you want to contribute. But otherwise, I'm going to just call it a day on this issue until I get something. Parsley Man (talk) 18:12, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Economist seems to have a completely different list of terrorist attacks in Europe (1970-1990):

• 1. https://mobile.twitter.com/TheEconomist/status/774567879039647744
• 2. http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2016/09/daily-chart-2?fsrc=scn/tw/te/bl/ed/deathsfromterroristattacksinthewest
• 3. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cr_RYUDXYAA8aVO.jpg

Is this Wikipedia article missing that much attacks? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.154.236.14 (talk) 12:04, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the 2016 Nice attack reference repeatedly being removed from the article? It was a terrorist attack and has been proven by French Intelligence and Police to be inspired from ISIS. Also, the Norway attacks are not included either. Please Fix both.

Again someone deleted it from the list.. what's up with that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.3.159 (talk) 04:59, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it was not. See the main article's talk page. Parsley Man (talk) 18:43, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because I added it again and Now it is deleted again Parsley Man — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.3.159 (talk) 20:09, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I told you to go read the talk page! Parsley Man (talk) 05:03, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOR learn to read — Preceding unsigned comment added by Op again (talk • contribs) 21:46, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite rude... Anyways, I read the main article talk page and? It's an act of terror and it occurred in Europe... it should be on this list, but people keep removing it over and over again... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.3.159 (talk) 02:17, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you should contribute to the discussion of you're so concerned. Reading a talk page is not going to solve anything if you're clearly intent on repeatedly undoing edits. There is actually a pretty good basis for the argument to not classify the Nice attack as an act of terrorism just yet. Parsley Man (talk) 20:53, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are no confirmed links between Breavik and other right wing terrorist. Same way there is no doubts about Bouhlel motivation. He want to kill people to send political massage that is terrorism by definition. --Jenda H. (talk) 17:31, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not. I'm not that educated about the 2011 Norway attacks but since Breivik was convicted of all the charges against him, the terrorism categorization is no longer disputed. But here, there are suspects being tried in the case, so WP:BLPCRIME applies here. Parsley Man (talk) 01:27, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, why there are another men charged in connection with Bouhlel attack? Why should someone want to be participant of mass murder unless there is some ideological, political or religious motivation? My point is: It is not important for categorisation whether he has some orders from Syria or not. Real motivation of participants is decisive and they clearly want "to send message" by killing other people. --Jenda H. (talk) 23:11, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should definitely be included. With the material found on his computer and the fact that accomplices have been arrested. Why is this level of scrutiny not being applied to the others? Karst Tates drove into a crowd and the description says "The motive for the attack is unknown." I mean surely Petri Gerdt shouldn't be on here, any links to terrorism have been ruled out and there's a real chance it could of been an accident. 86.6.119.173 (talk) 23:28, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely biased findings by not including the Nice attack. 86 people mowed down by "an ISIS inspired Terrorist". Several people charged with terrorism crimes related to the attack, yet on this page, if it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, it's not a duck. Have fun with your Whitewashing (censorship) of the Nice attack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.3.159 (talk) 23:03, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not included in the article:

-"National Socialist Underground a far-right German terrorist group which was uncovered in November 2011.[1] So far, the following crimes have been attributed to the NSU: the National Socialist Underground murders, a series of murders of nine immigrants (eight Turks and one Greek) between 9 September 2000 and 6 April 2006; the murder of a policewoman and attempted murder of her colleague; the 2001 and 2004 Cologne bombings; and a series of 14 bank robberies."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Underground

-"Oktoberfest terror attack was a terrorist attack with a right-wing radical background. On 26 September 1980, 12 people died and 211 were injured after the explosion of an improvised explosive device at the main entrance of the Oktoberfest in Munich, West Germany." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oktoberfest_terror_attack

Wrong information:

The Hamburg stabbing is categorized as ISIS related even though there's no proof whatsoever.

"The ISIL confession falsely claims that two persons were attacked with a knife"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Hamburg_stabbing_attack

31 October 2016 Stabbing Islamist, 1 dead

Nobody died according to the linked source! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.7.15.150 (talk) 13:58, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can we remove all the coats of arms? They are irrelevant here. They're not supported by MOS:FLAG. Bondegezou (talk) 10:48, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of any further comment, I'll chop them all. Bondegezou (talk) 23:24, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a bit of a mess. The title is very general, implying it is about terrorism in Europe generally, but the content is then only about terrorism in the EEC/EU. There's a good opening section on the Europol data, and then there's a very patchy list of incidents that tracks every recent minor event but ignores vast numbers of attacks in earlier decades. The list replicates what's in the various "List of terrorist incidents in..." articles.

I propose some bold changes. The article actually tries to cover terrorism in Europe, within which it uses the Europol data (noting it's only about the EU). This means expanding the geographic and temporal scope of what's covered. But that the list of incidents is dropped entirely for being an unhelpful duplication of content elsewhere. We then link to the relevant "List of..." articles.

Thoughts all? Bondegezou (talk) 15:58, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly agree that the title of the article is too general when referring to the listings of attacks. For example, portions of Istanbul, Turkey are part of Europe (but not the EU) and because of this, incidents such as the 2003 Istanbul bombings and the 2017 Istanbul nightclub attack are not included on the list. At the same time however, Norway is not an EU member either, and yet the 2011 Norway attacks are still included in the list. Perhaps this is due to the fact that Europol played a major role in investigating the Norway attacks? Either way, I support your proposal of linking the relevant "List of..." articles, since the definition of which European countries should be included in this article seems to be pretty ambiguous. --Undescribed (talk) 04:46, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. In the absence of further comment, I will WP:BOLDly go forth and make some changes. Bondegezou (talk) 14:21, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the content on the page has been deleted. Why has this occurred? Can someone reverse the deletion of this content? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.162.100 (talk) 18:27, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The changes are discussed in the section immediately above. The deleted content was an erratic and incomplete list of material covered in other articles, and there was endless confusion about what was in or not (EU vs. Europe). But that was my view. Other views welcome! Bondegezou (talk) 22:52, 7 January 2017 (UTC

Okay, but now the alternative is absolutely nothing and at least before there was information. I think this deletion was a big mistake and why not take the time to fix/add to the list? This page can be deleted if it is to remain as is. Also, I think the be bold edits should be reverted, because now the page has nothing.

I tried doing that. After a while, I realised I was barely making a dent in the problem. Look at how many items there are just at List of bombings during the Northern Ireland Troubles and peace process, every one of which should have been added here as well. The information is still on Wikipedia, at List of non-state terrorist incidents and subsequent articles, but trying to replicate that information here wasn't working, in my opinion. Bondegezou (talk) 14:03, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bondegezou is right. The list was too long and inconsistent – its criteria for inclusion was unclear and it was heavily weighted toward recent events.
However, instead of leaving nothing, I think we should replace it with a better list – one that is shorter and more consistent. A list of every terrorist attack in Europe would be much much too long, so I suggest we list only the biggest attacks here. We could limit it to attacks with at least ten deaths. The criteria for inclusion could be: attacks on civilians by non-state actors to achieve a political/religious/ideological aim, that are widely referred to as terrorism. The list should cover the whole of Europe, not just the EU. But I'm not sure whether to include Russia, as it has so many attacks that meet the criteria. Excluding Russia, this would leave us with a list of about 35 attacks:

As this article is meant to be an overview of terrorism in Europe, it makes sense for it to have an overview of the biggest terrorist attacks in Europe. The smaller attacks can be listed in the various country articles (altho only a few countries have lists so far). Also, as we'd only be listing the biggest attacks, there'd be very little duplication.
Thoughts? ~Asarlaí 23:10, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Asarlaí I love the list and I think it should be added to the article, because you are right that the page is meant to be an overview. Good job. Thanks. The only thing we have to add to the list are terrorist attacks with more than ten deaths in European Russia and Istanbul. I have updated the list and added it to the page.

A more constrained list is a sensible compromise.

The definition of Europe still poses a problem, I think. It makes little sense to include terrorist attacks from only part of Turkey or Russia, while excluding attacks from elsewhere in those countries. No terrorist group in Turkey has ever thought about whether their attack will count as in Europe or Asia. The socio-political context of terrorism does not match a geographical definition of the continent. Bondegezou (talk) 08:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've added another 6 incidents to the new list, although I've omitted the Hungarian train bombing by Szilveszter Matuska as there is uncertainty whether this counts as terrorism. Is 10 going to be too low a threshold? Bondegezou (talk) 08:45, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Added another 6. Does Wikipedia have a full list of ETA attacks? Bondegezou (talk) 12:04, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Added a few more... there's a problem with various conflicts like the Irish War of Independence, the Irish Civil War, the Spanish Civil War, the break-up of Yugoslavia and the Chechen Wars. At what point do actions within these stop being terrorism and start being war? Terrorism articles list numerous atrocities from the conflicts in Iraq and Syria, which would imply we should likewise list many acts from earlier conflicts, but I've shied away from doing this so far. Thoughts, anyone? Bondegezou (talk) 12:28, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should exclude Turkey. Only a very small bit of it is deemed part of Europe geographically; Turkey is instead usually deemed part of the Middle East politically and culturally. As terrorism tends to be political and meant to influence a state, it makes little sense to include terrorist attacks from only a small part of Turkey while excluding attacks from elsewhere in the country (to quote Bondezegou). We'd be including terrorist attacks in one half of a city but excluding attacks in the other half of the city.
I'm also not sure if we should include Russia. Although (most of) European Russia is usually deemed part of Europe politically and geographically, it has so many attacks that it dominates the list and all of them linked to one conflict. It might be better to link to Terrorism in Russia and list them all there. If we wanted to, we could exclude Turkey and Russia simply because they're transcontinental countries with most of their landmass in another continent.
Bondezegou, as to your question, I think we're agreed on what kind of attacks to include: attacks on civilians by non-state actors to achieve a political/religious/ideological aim, that are widely referred to as terrorism. That excludes attacks by state forces, and attacks against state forces. Also, most wartime massacres of civilians are seen as war crimes and/or wartime ethnic cleansing rather than terrorism. If we started including wartime massacres of civilians, and attacks by/against state forces, the list would become much too long again and it'd be less focused on purely terrorist acts.
Thoughts? ~Asarlaí 19:15, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On the first point, I'd be happy to exclude Turkey and Russia and include wording saying the article or the list covers countries solely or largely in Europe. Something like that? However, I suspect contrary editing will continue. Definitions of Europe get some editors riled! Bondegezou (talk) 19:30, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On the second point, I don't think one can exclude attacks against state forces: that excludes numerous events widely described as terrorism. Attacks by state forces, I concur, we should exclude, as is done on other articles, but I think problems of definitions remain. The IRA claim everything they did was a war, not terrorism, for example. Bondegezou (talk) 19:34, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, all definitions of terrorism include attacks on civilians, but not all include attacks on military. Likewise, all definitions include attacks by non-state forces, but not all include attacks by state forces.
I think it would be better to go with the definition that has the most agreement and the least controversy, like we've done with the perpetrators. Otherwise, I think it'd lead to a lot of edit-warring/arguments and the list becoming much too long again. There have been so many conflicts in Europe in the past hundred years involving non-state forces – uprisings, insurgencies, civil wars, independence wars, WW2 resistance movements etc. Their actions would've been called terrorism by their opponents, but not by their supporters and allies. Those disagreements continue today and sometimes involve governments. If we start including attacks on military we might have to go thru the attacks in each of those conflicts and weigh up the sources for and against calling them terrorism.
Maybe it'd be best to wait for more input from other editors? ~Asarlaí 23:59, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article does best by discussing the debate over what is and is not terrorism, and then clarifying what is included in the list given. Or, in other words, it's fine to exclude things, but we need to say that we're excluding them and why. I've previously added some text to that effect, which I hope helps.

There is a grey area between terrorism and civil war, as per the journal paper I've now cited in the article. However, if we leave to one side the full scale uprisings, there are many attacks against state forces that reliable sources regularly describe as terrorism. For example, it seems odd to exclude IRA attacks against British military personnel, while including IRA attacks against civilian targets from the same campaigns and, indeed, IRA attacks against military personnel that happened also to kill civilians. (Or, say, 1987 Zaragoza Barracks bombing, an attack against state forces by ETA that killed many civilians too.)

Attacks against state forces that haven't been part of a wider civil war, like those by the IRA and ETA, generally appear to me to be included as terrorism on Wikipedia. I note, for example, that the prior table here, as well as the articles List of terrorist incidents in Great Britain, Terrorism in Germany, Terrorism in Greece etc. and all the List of terrorist incidents in 1970 and following articles include such attacks. To be honest, I cannot recall seeing a Wikipedia article that doesn't include them. List of non-state terrorist incidents explicitly excludes acts by state forces, but includes attacks against state forces. The Europol figures that the articles discusses earlier on includes attacks against state forces too.

Comment from further editors always welcome! Maybe we could put some messages requesting input on the Talk pages of some of these similar articles. Bondegezou (talk) 10:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that in the lede of the article, it mentions that the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 is the deadliest aviation terrorist attack in Europe, with 270 deaths. However, shouldn't this title belong to the bombing of Air India Flight 182 off Ireland, which killed 329 people? --Undescribed (talk) 07:55, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Have changed text. Bondegezou (talk) 13:19, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Also, what do you think about the idea of changing the top right picture to that of the Air India 182 crash? Perhaps an image similar to the memorial picture used for the 2004 Madrid bombings, such as File:Air India Memorial.jpg or File:Plaqueinbantry.jpg could be used? --Undescribed (talk) 15:18, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The 2004 Madrid bombings are not the deadliest attacks on land, but rather the slaughter of 354 at the Beslan school siege. Please fix. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.162.100 (talk) 20:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that the text in the figure legend not make any claims as to what was the worst attack given continued debate as to what constitutes terrorism and what constitutes Europe. We could go back to the more neutral text I used earlier. I would then suggest, if photos are available, swapping out the boat and adding something for Beslan. Bondegezou (talk) 10:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it seems as though someone already decided to remove attacks in Russia and Turkey entirely, citing back to the talk page discussion as a consensus. That would exclude the 1999 Russian apartment bombings and 2004 Beslan school siege as deadlier land attacks than the 2004 Madrid bombings, even though they technically did take place in Europe. --Undescribed (talk) 23:56, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems as though there is still some controversy in regards to the collage of images in the article lede showing the 2004 Madrid bombings, Air India Flight 182, and City of Poros ship attack. As a result, I have decided to add a new discussion in regards to the matter. Personally I don't see a problem with the images that are currently shown, but perhaps there are more appropriate images? Any ideas? --Undescribed (talk) 13:27, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the Westminster attack missing? Virtusinvita (talk) 20:13, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting from the article: "The following is a list of terrorist incidents in Europe which resulted in at least ten deaths". --Krenair ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:15, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Who choose that number? Seems arbitrarily high. We should vote on a new minimum. 5 would exclude most small knife and car ramming attacks but the major attacks would be included. --78.35.118.191 (talk) 23:02, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Currently we only include terror incidents that resulted it at least 10 death. This excludes noteworthy incidents like the 2012 Burgas bus bombing, 2017 Stockholm attack, 2017 Westminster attack and Jewish Museum of Belgium shooting. Lowering the number to 5 will only include three more incidents mentioned (at least from Islamic side). So this will not blow up the list with dozens of minors incidents. --Arcadius Romanus (talk) 01:13, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about all kinds of terrorism in Europe since the 19th century. Lowering the limit at 5 will probably include much more incidents. For a more detailed list of recent Islamic terrorism incidents there are other articles, such as Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present). --Ita140188 (talk) 07:29, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. We used to have a longer list and it was completely overwhelming. I've just started looking through the Northern Ireland incidents and there are 5 from 1972 alone where more than 5 (but less than 10) died. There are numerous other articles, beginning with List of terrorist incidents, that provide more comprehensive lists of incidents, by year, by region, by perpetrator. Bondegezou (talk) 09:08, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since parts of Russia are on the European continent we should include all attacks that happened east of the Ural (witch are almost all). There is no specific definition of Europe or the selected countries given so the default definition should apply. Europe#List_of_states_and_territories --Arcadius Romanus (talk) 21:29, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It makes little sense to me to include attacks in one part of Russia but not another. The definition of "Europe" geographically doesn't seem as relevant as the politics of national borders. What we've done too late is exclude all of Russia, but point people at the relevant article on terrorism in Russia. But I don't feel strongly about the status quo. Bondegezou (talk) 22:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it makes more sense to include all of Russia or nothing at all. Since Wikipedia clears treats Russia as part of Europe (see the link above and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Europe), I am going to add Russian incidents. But if someone adds a section to the article explaining why Russia is not included I am also fine with that. I don't agree with the current argument "It excludes transcontinental countries such as Turkey and Russia, which have most of their landmass in another continent.". European Russia contains about 77% of the country's population. Shouldn't people be more important than the landmass? --Arcadius Romanus (talk) 18:49, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me. Bondegezou (talk) 15:21, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Undescribed: We have been discussing the matter here. Would you like to chime in? Bondegezou (talk) 22:30, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Undescribed: I couldn't find any argument why Russia was excluded. --Arcadius Romanus (talk) 22:52, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bondegezou: Well personally I don't feel as though Russia should be included, because while Russia might be considered to be a part of Europe from a political/cultural standpoint, there is no clear-cut definition as to which parts of Russia are part of Europe from a geographical standpoint. I do agree that if we did include Russia, it should be incidents that happened in all of the country, as doing otherwise would most likely result in some confusion among the general Wikipedia consumer. But since Russia is technically a transcontinental country, if we were to include it we might as well include all of the other transcontinental countries such as Turkey, Kazakhstan, etc. --Undescribed (talk) 02:46, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Arcadius Romanus: You can find this discussion under the subsection "Bold Proposal." Undescribed (talk) 02:46, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't any consensus decision there. Everywhere else on Wikipedia Russia is treated as part of Europe:

• European Court of Human Rights
• Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present)
• Europe
• Wikipedia:WikiProject_Europe

I think there criteria, as stated before should be where the majority of the people lives and not the land mass. Land mass is a rather arbitrary criteria. I could argue that Denmark should be excluded because most of their land mass is not part the European continent (Greenland). This is not relevant for the discussion but so far I couldn't find any attacks that didn't happen on the European continent. --Arcadius Romanus (talk) 09:38, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. Undescribed (talk) 23:38, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to re-add Russian incidents. @Undescribed please take part in the discussion before removing them again. --Arcadius Romanus (talk) 00:19, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Arcadius Romanus has a point terrorist incidents in all geographically European areas should be included within this list due to the cultural, political and demographic ties to Europe and also for sake of consistency across Wikipedia articles. Consumers with knowledge of Russia related terrorism may also treat the article as bias if they see the exclusion of terrorist incidents within European Russia thus they may disregard the rest of the articles information compromising the integrity of the article. --EMU FAM (talk) 17:50, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am adding back my sentence in the introduction commenting that intercontinental countries are not being included, I would like to ask why there have been objections to this short sentence being there. It is placed there to avoid confusion in the reader as anyone with knowledge of terrorism in Turkish and Russian Europe would likely see the article as biased. It is an important note which justifies its presence in not only the description for the list lower down on the page but also the introduction. Perhaps some bias may be at play here. EMU FAM (talk) 12:00, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't b the most current incident at the top? Most visitors are probably more interested in current events than in what happened 100 years ago. --Arcadius Romanus (talk) 21:52, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The list is sortable so visitors can order it as they wish. Wikipedia standard is to go in date order as the default. Bondegezou (talk) 22:20, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the heading "Date" in the table to "Date started" and it's now been changed back. Just to explain, we have a couple of incidents that went over more than one calendar day, but to make the table sortable, we need to keep to a single date there. So my thinking was that "Date started" clarifies that, for the small number of longer incidents, we're only giving day 1. Bondegezou (talk) 15:21, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It just seems like putting "date started" in the header of the table would be a little bit ambiguous because it does not specify which attacks spanned multiple days, and as you mentioned, only the first day can be listed. Among the general public, when it comes to multi-day terror attacks, you typically only hear mention of the day in which the event started. For example, most media mentions that the November 2015 Paris attacks occurred on November 13th, even though they technically lasted into the 14th as well. --Undescribed (talk) 03:02, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Bondegezou (talk) 16:41, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Terrorism in Europe. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.lefigaro.fr/actualite-france/2015/01/07/01016-20150107ARTFIG00178-historique-des-attentats-en-france-depuis-1994.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080326232104/http://www.panamair.org/accidents/lockerbievictims.htm to http://www.panamair.org/accidents/lockerbievictims.htm

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) 11:07, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TryDeletingMe and Calthinus are in dispute about whether the Podujevo bus bombing should be included, which comes down to whether it can be considered terrorism. Tension over this point has previously arisen on the article's Talk page: see Talk:Podujevo_bus_bombing#WARNING:_Article_full_of_lies.

Whether something is or is not terrorism is frequently contested. There are no hard rules here as to what constitutes terrorism. So we follow the basic Wikipedia principle of considering how reliable sources describe something. The Telegraph and LA Times quote Serbian government figures as saying it is terrorism, although the articles don't say that directly. This BBC News report does describe it as a terrorist act directly. AP has a UN representative calling it terrorism. I think that's sufficient to include the event here. What do others think? Bondegezou (talk) 16:01, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bondegezou No, there is no "dispute". The source he used didn't mention the word terrorist, hence it is source falsification. Furthermore, he can be reverted at will as per WP:BANREVERT as he is indefinitely banned. By the way, he also made a show of posting the flag of Kekistan, a far right neo-Nazi meme. --Calthinus (talk) 16:03, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Calthinus. As Bondegezou noted, relieable sources such as LA Times and the Telegraph do not describe the events as "terrorism". Furthermore, the events of the Kosovo War and claims on terrorism are elaborated on Kosovo Liberation Army. Giving undue weight to such a POV counters with WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE and WP:Fringe. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:10, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given what you say about TryDeletingMe, s/he should be reverted/ignored. Thanks for pointing that out.

Moving on, I found a BBC article, a quote from a UN representative and two Serbian government statements that describe the event in question as terrorism, as given above. (The LA Times and Telegraph articles don't say this isn't terrorism, although they duck using the term outside of quoting someone else.) While the position of the Serbian government is obviously biased, the BBC and the UN are not fringe.

The KLA don't claim responsibility for the bombing, so their status as or as not a terrorist group is not directly relevant. Bondegezou (talk) 21:29, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the BBC and the UN representative referred to it as such, Bondegezou, then yes, list it as terrorism. 23 editor (talk) 17:55, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC is RS (UN -- complicated). No objections if it's in the BBC text. --Calthinus (talk) 02:46, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am pressed for time so provide here a quote of the part where the BBC describes the events as terrorism. In any case, many events of past conflicts of Yugoslavia have been described as terrorism by a minority of sources. Hence I mentioned the discussions on the status of the KLA as a terrorist organization though the authors of the Podujevo bombing case are not known to this day. Many events of Yugosalvia conflicts were originally considered by some as terrorism but today nobody does call them so. Can someone elaborate on the position scholars have on the Podujevo bombings nowadays? The only Yugoslavia event that is called terrorism by all RS is the Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand which caused WWII and some 70 million victims. Ktrimi991 (talk) 07:48, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a more recent scholarly piece describing the bombing as terrorism, albeit medical rather than politico-historical. Bondegezou (talk) 08:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Medical doesn't cut if for me, tbh. Of course terrorism is a problematic label for things since it lacks a precise definition. Do we call the PKK terrorists? (I would advocate not doing so, despite widespread Turkish and Western designation as such.) --Calthinus (talk) 16:23, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Terrorism" is a highly contested term, but it's a term that's used. It's not a term I rush to use, but it doesn't matter what you or I think, it's what reliable sources say. If a fair number of reliable sources refer to something as terrorism, then it can go on the list (other criteria being met). We've got a BBC piece, an academic paper and the UN calling this terrorism. That looks good enough to me. Whether the PKK or the KLA should be called terrorists can be discussed on their articles: neither is accused of the Podujevo bus bombing.

I additionally note the Podujevo bus bombing article is in two Terrorist incidents categories itself, and is also on List of terrorist incidents in 2001. It would seem odd for other articles to consider it worthy of being listed under terrorism, but not this one. Bondegezou (talk) 16:43, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And I note that the first section of this article (after the lede) explicitly says that the term is contested, so that the reader is warned before they dive into the list. Bondegezou (talk) 16:56, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Does or does not the BBC describe it, in its own words, as terrorist? This is what we should talk about. Not medical references. Or Kurdistan (my bad).--Calthinus (talk) 17:56, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Calthinus, and as a matter of fact, the categories and the other article very well could fall under WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. This article contains only some of those events that have been called "terrorism". The criteria for inclusion of events on this article seems to be being considered terrorism by a majority of RS. The majority of RS do not call the Podujevo bombing "terrorism", AFAIK. Judah, Perritt and other specialized RS on the Kosovo War do not describe the Podujevo bombing as an act of terrorism. To proceed with the matter at hand, provide the quote where the BBC says that the event was terrorism. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:57, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Calthinus: I linked to the BBC article above. It describes the bombing as terrorism. I don't see why the journal article should be discounted.

Sorry, Ktrimi991, I don't follow what you're saying. It is clearly relevant that other List of terrorism articles include this event. This is not about OTHERCRAPEXISTing. Why should the Podujevo bus bombing article itself discuss terrorism, and be categorised as terrorism, and be listed on other articles under terrorism, but it not be listed here?

If you have articles saying this was not terrorism or clearly avoiding using the term while applying it to other things, then please link to them. Bondegezou (talk) 21:34, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The *medical journal article, you mean. Because Vassalo Alempijevic et al will not be held accountable for political terminology, given that they are forensic pathologists, orthopedic surgeons and so forth. Terrorist is such a problematic label we even have a policy for it. Now, the BBC article does mention the word "terrorist", but not in a way that I would like to see for its inclusion for the page, only mentioned in this one sentence: In Belgrade, the Yugoslav parliament cut short its session in protest at the terrorist attack, which it described as an act of terrorism aimed at destabilising the area. -- considering they also fudged the map of Kosovo, it is not hard to see this as a paraphrase. If we have other RS describing it as a terrorist attack, sure, but we are not reinstating the edit of a the far-right permabanned troll without them.--Calthinus (talk) 03:04, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bondegezou: I think that none of us has the time and energy to stay focused on a small detail for much more time. Provide here all RS (specialized in the topic, not medicine articles) that refer to the events as terrorism and we can evaluate if they are a majority or a minority. This article includes only those events that are described as terrorism by a majority of RS. You have actually given some RS that do not consider the events terrorism (the Telegraph, LA Times). Do that as soon as possible as we all need to move on and focus on other articles. Ktrimi991 (talk) 07:42, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided links above. If you have more, please offer them here.

I see no reason to exclude a paper in a medical journal: there are many aspects to a bombing and the medical one is as important as others. The authors were on the ground and directly involved in the aftermath of the incident. Their article has clearly had far more attention put into it than, say, a Telegraph news piece.

The Telegraph and LA Times articles do not count as evidence against: they both use the word "terrorism", but approach it through the Yugoslav government's position. Every article I have seen about the event makes some mention of terrorism; I've seen nothing that offers some alternate descriptor. If you have them, please give details. Thanks.

Until this discussion, the Podujevo bus bombing article was in two terrorism categories and listed in another terrorism article. Clearly consensus on Wikipedia has been to describe this event in these terms.

Thus, we have multiple RS describing this as terrorism, and we have past Wikipedia consensus describing this as terrorism. The more I look, the clearer the answer appears to me.

In a politically charged context, a bomb is blown up, killing civilians indiscriminately. "Terrorism" is a highly contested term, which is why I've worked on this article in the past to put that term in context. But Wikipedia uses it and has been using it to describe this event. Bondegezou (talk) 09:57, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What Wikipedia has done in teh past or what we as individuals think is immaterial. You have not yet produced RS saying it is terrorism. You have produced RS saying the Serbian government called it terrorism. Producing walls of text won't obscure that. The way out of this for you is producing a source (not a medical source which is not held accountable for political terminology) that actually describes it in its own words as terrorism, in a clause not talking about the Serbian government's response. If this is actually the view of RS for a fairly widely publicized event, that shouldn't be hard to find. It will also save you a lot more time than trying to fight over it.--Calthinus (talk) 19:40, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Podujevo bus bombing should be included, because as well as several reliable neutral sources calling it terrorism, one of the perpetrators was convicted of terrorism for the bombing. See here and here. The book Peace at Any Price: How the World Failed Kosovo, by Iain King and Whit Mason, is another reliable source calling it terrorism. ~Asarlaí 16:32, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It came to my attention a while back that the Europol report had been used on this page to misrepresent the notion that left-wing groups were more dangerous than right wing groups - the chart on this page was being commonly cited by those attempting to white-wash the right's history of terrorism in Europe. On studying the Europol report more closely, it is apparent most of the arrests cited as 'left-wing' were anarchist related, hence this label has been changed for accuracy. I've noticed a few unregistered IPs are trying to revert this, claiming I haven't read the report. I have. :) AbrahamCat (talk) 02:27, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What wording does the report use? We should stick to that. To change the report's wording would be WP:SYNTH. Bondegezou (talk) 10:24, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The report uses the following categories: Jihadist; Ethno-nationalist and separatist (abbreviated to separatist); Left-wing and anarchist (abbreviated to left-wing); Right-wing; and Single-issue terrorism. To shorten "Left-wing and anarchist" to just "Anarchist" on a figure is therefore misleading and WP:SYNTH. Happy to see more prose in the article to discuss these issues, but the figures should return to their prior form. Bondegezou (talk) 10:32, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The updated interpol report states that left-wing terrorist activity in the EU appears to have ceased(p58). It would therefore be misleading to align left-wing terrorism and anarchist terrorism as the next-most leading threat. AbrahamCat (talk) 14:27, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have tweaked the tenses in the text to make clear where we are talking about a period of a few years ago versus the most recent Europol report. Further expansion of the text on what the most recent report says may be of value. Bondegezou (talk) 14:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have now moved AbrahamCat's new text to the bottom of the section to make clear that chronology. I hope that was useful to do. Bondegezou (talk) 14:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The table that makes up most of the article includes events if there were at least 10 deaths. Asarlaí in a recent edit removed one row on the grounds that, although there were 22 deaths, 14 of those were the perpetrators, so there were less than 10 victim deaths. I've reverted for now as the text at the top of the table doesn't make a victim/perpetrator distinction. So, that's the question? Should we? Should we only include events with at least 10 victim deaths? Bondegezou (talk) 16:06, 27 March 2019 (UTC) This would mean removing Shankill Road bombing, Kumanovo clashes, 2016 Munich Shooting (which Asarlaí disputes for other reasons), and 2017 London Bridge attack. Bondegezou (talk) 16:08, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should limit it to attacks with at least ten victims, because terrorist attacks by definition target civilians and aim to create victims. I don't think we should include the terrorists themselves in the main death tolls, because in most cases they don't intend to die and are killed by police/soldiers rather than in the attack itself. But I'll wait and see what other editors think.

The 2016 Munich shooting shouldn't be on the list, because it isn't "widely referred to as terrorism". I recently updated that article to give a fuller and more accurate overview of what investigators and other analysts think. Both the investigators and Germany's security agency concluded that it wasn't a political act. One independent report concluded that it was partly driven by ideology, but stopped short of calling it a terrorist attack. The third and most recent report concluded that it wasn't political. The article on Islamic terrorism in Europe has very strict criteria for including attacks, and (while that remains so) we should have similarly strict criteria here.

I also think the Kumanovo clashes shouldn't be here. Firstly, it was a police raid against a paramilitary group, rather than a terrorist attack. Secondly, most of those killed were militants, rather than civilians or police. ~Asarlaí 19:20, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have persuaded me with respect to the 2016 Munich Shooting: let's remove that.

I would like to see if other editors have views on changing the cut-off to 10 victims, but if no-one else says anything, let's do that too.

I wonder if you have any views of the Podujevo bus bombing, as discussed two Talk sections above? Bondegezou (talk) 21:45, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how much this page is missing but based it could be a lot based this Dutch wiki page: https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorisme_in_Nederland For the list on the Dutch page alone is longer than the list on this page and that mentions none attacks in the Netherlands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otter20 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that link. The table in this article only covers events where there were at least 10 deaths (excluding deaths among those carrying out the attacks). That's why a lot of the events on the Dutch page are not included. Bondegezou (talk) 08:35, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PJ Geest kindly added a graphic based on the Global Terrorism Database. I noticed this lists an event in Switzerland in 2001 that's not in our table: that's the Zug massacre. That event is not described as terrorism in its Wikipedia article, but if it's in the Global Terrorism Database, then that's a reliable source describing it so. Should we include it in our table? Bondegezou (talk) 15:46, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For me including it in the table is OK. --PJ Geest (talk) 05:44, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There really is no proof that ETA did it, it's a conspiracy theory, are we going to put 11M on ETA while we're at it ? Not even the spanish government alleges that ETA did it, I'm remvoing it The basque savior (talk) 21:26, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hotel_Corona_de_Aragón_fire#Controversy provides various sources suggesting a link. Do you have reliable sources disputing this? Bondegezou (talk) 09:41, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

and if you actually read the article, you'd see that the official version is that the fire was accidental, claiming to the contrary is a conspiracy theory. Wikipedia is not to entertain conspiracy theories, all the sources from the article are from extremly biased and unreliable sources (AVT is a far right basque hating and islamophobic organisation) and El mundo is a tabloid that claims that ETA is behind 11M not reliable source, the Guardia civil website doesn't mean anything, if they found out the fire was a terrorist attack, they'd make a public announcement not edit the description of a general on their website.

https://elpais.com/diario/1979/11/20/espana/311900416_850215.html The basque savior (talk) 09:55, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've put a note at Talk:Hotel_Corona_de_Aragón_fire#ETA_connection to encourage more input. Bondegezou (talk) 10:07, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are some additional citations given at the Spanish-language page. Bondegezou (talk) 10:13, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This piece is a quite nice summary of the controversy. Bondegezou (talk) 10:45, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The "controversy" is non existant apart from a few spanish conspiracist, again this entire blame on ETA relies on the spanish government lying about the event to protect ETA, this is nonsensical, even if the claim of it being an intentional act and not an accident, there is no proof of ETA's involvement, they denied it, nothing was found connecting them to the event, nobody ever admitted anything, the spanish government never put the blame on ETA, the only people who do are far right organisations like AVT that regurlary defend spanish nationalist terrorists, this is as based on reality as the people who alleges that Notre Dame was burned intentionally The basque savior (talk) 11:51, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is asking to prove a negative. I am no expert in this topic but per WP:LISTV it seems the fire should not be listed here since the consensus is that the fire was an accident and sources claiming the opposite are not WP:V and possibly WP:FRINGE. KetchupSalt (talk) 07:41, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@W1tchkr4ft 00: Your input here would be welcome. I'm seeing multiple sources discussing ETA's possible involvement. I'm not of a fixed view as to how we should cover this; happy to hear different viewpoints. But they need to be based on Wikipedia policy and what sources say. Bondegezou (talk) 10:48, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The basque savior has been blocked for a short period for violating WP:3RR.

I don't agree with the characterisation of claims of ETA involvement as WP:FRINGE. We have some reliable source reporting raising the question. However, I can accept that there is insufficient RS support to include the incident in this list, while still maintaining discussion of possible ETA involvement in the Hotel_Corona_de_Aragón_fire article. Bondegezou (talk) 09:07, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Spanish equivalent to the Daily Mail is not a reliable source, it is a fringe idea, equivalent to talking about the 9/11 conspiracy theories on the 9/11 article, it's not necessarly wrong, but should be shown as what it is, a conspiracy theory claiming that the spanish government is hiding information in ETA's favor, a completly delusional idea not based on anything real The basque savior (talk) 05:50, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not knowledgeable on this even by any means but the only thing in source to this claim to begin with what a throwaway comment in (), light-research on this matter from any publication of note that i read in spanish was very careful to couch the claim with 'we just do not know' or that it very likely was just an accident, so i do not think we can in good faith accredit the action to ETA much as we might wish that they did it as simply that is not what the sources are saying.

I also think how you have treated @The basque savior in a pretty problematic way tbh for what is a very sensible edit what with the way you challenged them and the ban, they are probably a new user and quite frankly shit like this is why people tend not to stick around this project, we must learn to treat people who come here to edit in earnest and good faith with more respect, i think... SP00KYtalk 11:41, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Im removing the Cyprus Airways flight 284 from the list of terrorist incidents as the official conclusion is still classified by the British government who refuse to give their findings to even the Cypriot government, additionally most researchers who have taken this on privately have mostly come to the conclusion that this was an assassination attempt on Gen. Georgios Grivas, then head of the Cypriot National Guard and former EOKA leader who was meant to be on the flight but then was tipped off to a security issue and never boarded. In the book "Bealine Charlie Oscar: Flight CY284 - The Real Story Behind a Forgotten Atrocity" from Simon Hepworth on page 176 it states "Following reports from MI6 it is almost certain that 66 people lost their lives because of an attempt to assassinate Gen. Grivas, commander of the Cyprus armed forces. Mr. Wilson is forced to play this down becuase of the Cyprus crisis". Also would make sense as to why it has never been declassified by the British government given the Cyprus problem. Also would make sense as to the fact that nobody ever came out to take credit for the attack, usually terrorists would jump that gun, in this case this didnt happen. Other sources that make mention of this book.^[1] Other sources that make mention of an assassination attempt ^[2][3][4] ShovelandSpade (talk) 10:26, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for starting this discussion. Does any of that mean the event does not constitute terrorism? An assassination with collateral damage can still count as terrorism. The details of what happened should be discussed in the bombing's article, but I'm not convinced of the rationale for excluding it here. The Cyprus Airways Flight 284 article is categorised as a terrorist incident. "God, Darwin, and the Problem of Evil" by James J. Garber (2016) calls it terrorism. But happy to hear the views of other editors here. Bondegezou (talk) 11:59, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is we dont know who tried to kill him, conspiracies have ranged from TMT to even his own government, terrorism by definition is "the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.", Grivas, wasnt a civilian, intimidation clearly wouldnt be the intended goal of an assassin and technically depending on who is responsible, the killing of Grivas may not have been so much "political" as it would have been strategic given that he was the one in charge of co-ordinating all military forces in Cyprus including those of the Hellenic Forces, so purely of that, Grivas is technically a legitimate target albeit the consequences would have likely been dire but since there are too many unknowns, I dont think it counts as terrorism. ShovelandSpade (talk) 15:31, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thoughts. There are other incidents in the list where the perpetrator is unknown or uncertain, so I don't think that alone is a reason not to include it.

We should be careful about trying to interpret criteria, so as not to fall foul of WP:OR. What matters is what the weight of reliable sources call the event. Some do call it terrorism, but perhaps not enough. I am uncertain. Bondegezou (talk) 11:45, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree as to OR however surely that goes both ways, as in, its better not to include it if we are unsure as opossed to adding it based on criteria were unsure of, maybe if wiki has some form of specific criteria for these kind of events it would be helpful for us. Ive read a couple books on this specific incident which call assassination attempt however I doubt ive read every source on planet earth with regards to it. Maybe if there are other editors who are read up on this topic or if we dig into more sources we may find something new. ShovelandSpade (talk) 12:58, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]