Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stochastic terrorism

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

The result was delete. A clear consensus to delete on the basis that the subject does not have enough sources to support a stand-alone article. If anyone would like me to restore the article into draftspace to do a selective merge into another article just let me know. A Train^talk 09:26, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Stochastic terrorism

Stochastic terrorism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This term is not really a term. It is invented by some blogger, and accidentally repeated by a reliable source. Delete per WP:NEO. This term is unsuitable for inclusion in Wikipedia and should be deleted or ported to Wikitionary per WP:DICTDEF & WP:NOT. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  13:53, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:55, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:55, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment: I don't think I agree with the comment that the "reliable source" mention is accidental. The Rolling Stone article both describes the term as a "non-legal term that has been occasionally discussed in the academic world for the past decade and a half", and then expressly also links to the 2011 blog post for help defining it. The author was David S. Cohen (though not this David S. Cohen), a published law professor and regular Rolling Stone contributor on national politics. He would actually know if the term had previously been "discussed in the academic world". Shelbystripes (talk) 14:42, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

• Weak delete, I tried to find some of those academics discussing it and came up almost empty. The only arguably reliable source I found via Google Scholar was this; all others discussed "stochastic terrorism risk modelling" or related topics that have nothing to do with what our article is about. The article mostly uses rather dubious sources to accuse American political and media figures of being "stochastic terrorists"; the only academic source using the term has an entirely different context. So it seems a little-used neologism which is used here in a non-WP:NPOV way. Huon (talk) 15:03, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
• Weak Delete Most scholar hits are indeed for stochastic modelling. There are some book references - [1], [2], including one from 2013 - [3]. However I don't think this and the sparse news coverage is enough. I kind believe that ISIS's inspired lone-wolf terrorism might be described as such more widely (there are some that currently describe it as such) as stochastic terrorism - but I don't think we're there yet.Icewhiz (talk) 15:12, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
• Keep "accidentally repeated by a reliable source" is the most contrived reason I've ever heard in a deletion discussion. The general notability guidelines only require coverage in reliable sources. You don't get to decide whether that's intentional or accidental because that would be editorializing and beyond the scope of Wikipedia. Similarly, with neologisms, one doesn't just use that word for any new term, but rather those that aren't used by reliable sources. This article contains usage of the term by Rolling Stone, Raw Story, Vox, and Salon; all reliable sources. Not sure why people are getting hung up over academic usage when the article makes clear that that's just the origin of the term and that it has been used by journalists. The proof of that is right in the references section.

The neologism policy states that "to support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept", meaning they discuss the term rather than merely using it. Rolling Stone says "In other words, what Trump just did is engage in so-called stochastic terrorism. This is..." Raw Story says "In an incident of stochastic terrorism..." Vox: "Cohen says that this phenomenon is called 'stochastic terrorism'... Let's break that down in the context of what Trump said". Salon says "Bill O’Reilly and other right-wing media personalities have encouraged violence against individuals and groups with whom they disagree. What is known as 'stochastic terrorism'..." These are all sources that discuss the term rather than just using it, showing that the term isn't just a neologism. Opencooper (talk) 18:53, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

The number of news articles using the term is fairly low, and the usage itself also varies. Some is applied to Trump (2nd amendment), others to ISIS, and possibly a few more. This is not a well established term with a clear meaning. Some usages overlap with incitement,others perhaps not. I would expect a term to be more widely used.Icewhiz (talk) 19:06, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Notability doesn't hinge on number of sources, but rather depth of coverage. See for yourself. Words can be applied to multiple subjects, that's no shocker. "This is not a well established term with a clear meaning" is plain false considering each source cites the same definition. The exact definition is a content issue, not a question of notability. Opencooper (talk) 19:10, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Opencooper (talk) 19:07, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

• It is possible for to words to be used together and not have the extra meaning. Can you say for sure the extended meaning of this term beyond the convergence of the meanings of both words is being met? eg. I could create an article called "Great Pizza", with multiple sources to prove it in a similar way, yet "Great Pizza" is not a encyclopedic term. The meaning put forward in this article is only backed up by one blog. (Stochastic is a known word with a similar meaning to random). - WP:DICTDEF, I forgot to mention it before. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  19:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

• Okay, at this point it's pretty clear you haven't read the sources and are just being disingenuous because that would have answered your question right away. In fact I'm not even sure you read the article itself since it shows it's much more than a WP:DICTDEF. People like you are why I stopped participating in AfD, where the nominator always starts off with a shaky premise and acronyms to mask an agenda, then everyone else just follows, and the closing admin always just looks a the number of votes instead of considering the strength of arguments. Opencooper (talk) 19:43, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

• Keep per Opencooper's clear factual analysis. Some of the arguments against are so bad I wonder if there's an agenda to try to suppress the term because of who it has been applied to (Trump). Gpc62 (talk) 20:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

  It has been applied to a Trump saying (the 2nd amendment saying) and to a number of others. My issue here is the complete lack of reputable academic sourcing. The single source I do see - [4] - discusses this in the context of Lone wolf (terrorism), which seems quite related or the same. Other than that - we have blogs and reporters reporting (and not that much!) that people have applied this label to Trump and other people. For the record - I don't have an issue in stating that Trump possibly incited violence or terrorism with "2nd amendment people" saying.Icewhiz (talk) 14:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Response below. -- Gpc62 (talk) 19:05, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reopened discussion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  14:40, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• delete As others have said above, the GScholar hits are simple juxtapositions having nothing to do with our article. GBook hits are very odd in that there seem to be only a couple that register the real phrase; the rest all seem to be artifacts of Google's search algorithms. Evidence suggests that it's one blogger's catch-phrase that never got significant traction. Mangoe (talk) 15:37, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• Reiterating my "Keep" !vote from above:Keep Reiterating: Opencooper has already refuted the argument about academic sources (reliable sources are not required to be academic). "Reporters reporting" (as cited by Icewhiz above) is pretty much the definition of one type of "reliable source." To claim it is "one blogger's catchphrase" simply doesn't match the evidence. As Shelbystripes pointed out, the author of the Rolling Stone article, a law professor, would know what he was talking about when he writes that term "has been occasionally discussed in the academic world for the past decade and a half."

Opencooper has also made the case that Wiki:DICTDEF does not apply. The page is more than a dictionary definition.

Yes, the term should be added Wiktionary. (It already appears on dictionary.com.)

There is another point to make: The focus on the extent of Google-able usage of the exact term is a red herring. The page is about the concept of stochastic terrorism. That concept has definitely been prominently discussed in a wide range of media, albeit mostly without use of the term "stochastic terrorism". (Publications aimed at the general public would naturally tend to avoid this term because "stochastic" would sound like reader-intimidating jargon to the publications' editors.) It is clearly worth having a page describing and discussing the concept. What succinct, accurate label other than "stochastic terrorism" could we use as the page title for this precise concept?

Icewhiz above claims that the term "seems quite related or the same" as Lone Wolf terrorism. That's a misunderstanding of the concept. First, the lone wolf who is incited to act by statements in the media is not engaging in stochastic terrorism. As I understand it, the stochastic terrorism is the use of inciting statements (or images, etc.). (Arguably, the term could also be used to refer to the statements plus the incited acts.) Second, the "random actors" who "carry out violent or terrorist acts" need not be lone wolves. -- Gpc62 (talk) 19:05, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

They are closely related. Stochastic terrorism (as I understand the sparse usage) is the incitement leading to random lone wolves carrying out attacks. The inciter does not know who will strike, but is aiming for some random person to strike somewhere. ISIS leadership is in this sense engaging in stochastic terrorism, which leads to lone wolf attacks. However this is, in ISIS's case (which has actually generated bona fida terror) usually described as a lone wolf wolf campaign, and not as stochastic terrorism.Icewhiz (talk) 19:17, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

It is often discussed with reference to lone wolves, probably because that's the simplest and most likely case, and it is easier to talk in concrete terms about a single type of case. But I believe it is not necessary for it to be a lone wolf who is incited. It would be crazy if statements ceased to be "stochastic terrorism" because they happened to incite a random small group of people to act rather than a lone wolf. And the inciter presumably doesn't care about whether n=1 or n>1. -- Gpc62 (talk) 19:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Small ad hoc groups, such as the trio in the London bridge attack have also been described as lone wolves, though the metaphor perhaps should be small pack. Lone wolf has not been limited to 1, but rather to 1 or more people detached from any formal c&c and inspired to attack.Icewhiz (talk) 20:01, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I think this still misses the point. The concept is about inciting a person or people to act through a broadcast message. The distinction that matters is that the people who act are not necessarily connected to the inciter except by their having received the broadcast message. It doesn't matter if they are a lone wolf, a small band of lone wolves, or, say, an ISIS cell (inspired by a non-ISIS broadcast message) who exist within a large command and control structure (a structure that the inciter is not a part of). -- Gpc62 (talk) 22:59, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Note - Gpc62 appears to have voted twice so far. Please see WP:AFDFORMAT; I respectfully request that you un-bold one of your two "KEEP" votes. Shelbystripes (talk) 22:14, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry -- I misread Mangoe's delete comment as being a repeat from above the relisting message, and I thought that was what we were supposed to do. Still, my understanding is that whoever closes this cares not about the raw number of !votes, but about the quality of the arguments made. -- Gpc62 (talk) 22:36, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• Delete - While I originally commented without taking a position, I now agree with the revised rationale for deletion, specifically WP:DICTDEF and WP:NOT. This may be a phrase worthy of dictionary definition, or not; what I don't see is enough material to justify an encyclopedic entry about it or notable uses of it. Shelbystripes (talk) 22:19, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
• Comment Again, I'm not sure why everyone is still going on about google scholar hits. Notability doesn't require scholarly sources specifically, just reliable ones. It's more than a WP:DICTDEF since the sources actually discuss the term and apply it to real-life figures. DICTDEF evens says: "such articles must go beyond what would be found in a dictionary entry (definition, pronunciation, etymology, use information, etc.), and include information on the social or historical significance of the term." If you're claiming this article just merely states "definition, pronunciation, etymology, use information", then you haven't read it. I implore everyone to take a minute to actually examine the sources used instead of bandwagoning. (it's a stub, so obviously the article itself won't be as fleshed out as the sources it's based on) Opencooper (talk) 23:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

  This is jargon used by non experts (reporters) in a very sparse fashion (while saying some academics have been using this for a while - apparently only informally as they haven't published using this jargon!). It only barely made a dictionary (It did not make Mirriam Webster, who have however explained the term in their trend watching blog - [5]. It did make dictionary.com - [6] ([7]). I could see how one could support a redirect to Incitement, Sedition or Lone wolf (terrorism) - but I'm not sure even that is warranted given the non-use of this. When adding concepts and terms - acceptance of the concept or term by experts is key. A few random news reports using a "cool jargony term" does not a concept make. Nor does a graduate student using cool jargon on his poster (or paper/presentation) to a conference. You expect use by several experts - and at least a semblance of an accepted meaning.Icewhiz (talk) 06:23, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Wow I never got the memo that all articles on terms on Wikipedia had to be used by scholars. Guess we can go ahead and delete the whole of Category:Slang then. I'm getting tired of pointing out to you that the notability guidelines don't make a distinction between types of sources for notability. Opencooper (talk) 17:57, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:NEO which, among other things, stipulates that in order to have a page a neologism must be supported by what "reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term." and that even "neologisms that are in wide use but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia." Here, however, use is not "wide" and the secondary source on which the definition is based is an anonymous blog entitled "Stochastic Terrorism"; I ran a JSTOR search and it came up empty. It may, of course, merely be WP:TOOSOON. If WP:SIGCOV of this term as a term surfaces at some future point, a section could be added to Lone wolf (terrorism), of which this seems to be an alternative label. Note that the only two sources that examine this term (the blog and the Rolling Stone article, define it as a type of lone wolf terrorism, Rolling Stone calls it a dog whistle to an "unknown lone wolf who hears his call and takes action in the future, " The blog says that, "The random actor, or "lone wolf" as the term is used in law enforcement and intel, is the person who responds to the incitement by carrying out the violent or terrorist act against the target person or group. For example they shoot someone or detonate a bomb. While their action may have been statistically predictable (e.g. "given sufficient provocation, someone will probably do such-and-such"), the specific person and the specific act are not yet predictable."E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

  The main source in this article is not the blog, but rather Rolling Stone and other such sources which do cover it in depth. I only cited the blog since that's the definition most websites use. Not sure why you're talking about JSTOR when this discussion has already established that solely academic sources aren't required. This term is distinct from lone wolf terrorism and reading the article would have shown that you in a second because [the speaker] escapes culpability and the perpetrator is labeled a lone wolf; the whole point is that it isn't a lone wolf who is just at fault. Opencooper (talk) 17:57, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• Opencooper, on what basis are you asserting that anyone exculpates Al Qaeda, ISIS, or promoters of anti-abortion violence? It is, in fact, assumed by mainstream sources that at a certain point rhetoric oversteps a line and becomes incitement. To be sure, there is a lot of arguing over where the line is, and different legal and ethical systems draw the line differently. But the only thing that distinguishes the type of lone wolf terrorism described in this article from lone wolf (terrorism) as a concept is the assertion that Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and Donald Trump have a unique ability to dog whistle. In fact, demagogues have always known how to dog whistle, or did you think that the perpetrators of the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre thought it up all by themselves. I won't argue over whether Catherine de' Medici did or did not whistle up that massacre, or whether Henry II of England actually demanded to be rid of the troublesome priest,only that there is no unique phenomenon in this article. Merely a new-coined phrase that fiald WP:NEO. E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:06, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• Whatever It's clear at this point that AfD is not a place for good-faith discussion on articles. Instead everyone just piles on with the best wikilawyering they can muster (everything's a neologism is you can argue hard enough for it). So far not even one delete !vote has shown that they have read any of the sources linked (which requires a new level of incompetence or willful blindness) or even understand basic notability (god forbid anyone try deleting an article on pop culture though), and are not just voting with their feelings. It's clear at this point that since the votes all point one way the closing admin has to follow the mob rule, and I doubt they'll take the time to review the sources or the soundness of any of the arguments presented. I used to think all those people who complained about deletionists were mistaken, but Wikipedia is seriously hostile to content-creators and anything that goes against a subset of editors and their preferred narratives. Fuck This Shit. Opencooper (talk) 17:57, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
• Certainly not Mob rule is never the way forward and I would hope an admin would have the good sense to know that. If you genuinely think this goes beyond a dictionary definition. then by all means continue to expand on the topic. You have made some valid points regarding the definition, and outlined possible areas of expansion, and as I see it, this has potential to be turned into a useful article about terrorism, as opposed to a stub which may be having a dig at our most honorable and enlightened supreme leader of the free world and allied nations of peace and posterity Trump. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  19:36, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• If this can be sourced up to snuff, it should be merged to lone wolf (terrorism), of which it is, according to the sources now on the page, a variety (strike and replace with better wording): of which it is, according to the sources now on the page, an aspect. . I would go along with a redirect. I have not suggested only because the term seems to have very little use, and even the article's main sources describe it as a type an aspect of lone wolf terrorism.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:39, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• A Guy into Books, could you clarify what you mean by "Certainly not" in bold type? I'm confused because your edit summary was "keep". So I'm not sure if "certainly not" is a response to OpenCooper's comments or to the implicit question "Should the page Stochastic terrorism be deleted?" By the way, I appreciate your willingness to actually listen to the arguments after having originally put the page up for AfD.

E.M.Gregory: So, if I understand correctly, your position is that when David S. Cohen writes in Rolling Stone, "In other words, what Trump just did is engage in so-called stochastic terrorism" he is saying that Trump is a lone-wolf terrorist? That would follow logically from your position that stochastic terrorism ("The use of mass communication to incite...") is "a variant" of lone-wolf terrorism.-- Gpc62 (talk) 21:11, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• This neologism is merely placing the emphasis on the incitement aspect of lone wolf terrorism, terrorism in which the terrorist acts without contact with the inciter. You are attempting to make a distinction where there is no difference. Merely two aspects of a familiar phenomenon that already has an article. E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:58, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• I do see where more emphasis on this aspect of lone wolf terrorism could be useful in tha tarticle. But hasten to point out that there is nothing except the coinage of this term that is new about arguing that the ideologues and publicists who promote and incite violence are responsible for the attacks they inspire.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:04, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, it places emphasis on the incitement because the incitement is the whole point. The incitement may or may not be followed by actual lone-wolf (or other) terrorism. You say I am "attempting to make a distinction where there is no difference." So, you are in fact declaring that there is no meaningful difference in the following two statements:

"By making his '2nd-amendment people' statement, Trump committed an act of stochastic terrorism."

"By making his '2nd-amendment people' statement, Trump committed an act of lone-wolf terrorism."

-- Gpc62 (talk) 23:50, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

It was a direct follow on from Opencooper's comment of 'whatever'. As the nom I doubt I am allowed to !vote keep on the page, but I canned the edit summary as keep to give an indication of my comments direction. Whether this can become a stand alone topic is still in the air, but it is interesting to see there is more to it than appears at first glance. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  21:33, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

You may withdraw nom, cross it out, and say keep above (in the nom, or as a separate vote) - if that is your opinion. You just can't speedy close if there are other Ds. But you may withdraw your nom and vote keep - I've seen that done on occasion (at times the Ds came in and didn't bother to take another look - so no speedy - in this case you have active opposition on the AFD discussion (including a question of whether this is redirect or delete) - but in any event anyone can change their mind). I'll say that what will sway me - and in my view this is important for doctrine and concepts (as opposed to figures, events, etc. - which can be sourced from the news at least initially) - is actual use of this term by experts, preferably in an academic setting (e.g. journal or conference papers) - and I don't see that here.Icewhiz (talk) 22:16, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• Delete - Could be merged or redirected to lone wolf (terrorism); also has elements of: propaganda, character assassination, hate speech, illusory correlation or even brainwashing#Popularization (but making those correlations remains WP:OR or WP:SYNTH if sources don't make these). Currently appears to be about a conspiracy theory lacking the necessary coverage which analyze it for us (to satisfy WP:PSCI and WP:PARITY). Maybe it's just WP:TOOSOON... —PaleoNeonate – 01:01, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
• Delete this obscure neologism, which apparently has not caught on after being coined (supposedly) 15 years ago. Maybe it will catch on, but in the meantime it's clearly WP:TOOSOON. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:52, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
• Delete Terrorism is one of the most prevalent topics in media. As such, i think we may require more usage of the term then the few articles we have now. I very much doubt it would make it to a dictionary, let alone an encyclopedia. PizzaMan (♨♨) 05:54, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
• Comment Since the writing is on the wall anyway, let me get a few more comments in. The votes since I last peaced out have only proven my point. More of the same bandwagoning and coming up with plausible but inapplicable reasons like "has not caught on" despite all of the reliable sources already in the article (I would bother counter-arguing if there was hope that my comments would matter and that I wasn't just shouting into the abyss). By the way, funny how there's not even one mention of anyone having tried to find more sources or on the content of any specific references, something that usually happens in every deletion discussion ever. One editor calls it a "conspiracy theory" when it's not even remotely so and some guy had the gall to add WikiProject Skepticism to the talk page. The last commenter even says they doubt it'd be in a dictionary, despite dictionary.com being linked earlier, proving that no one even bothers reading the previous discussion.

Continuing on the topic of editor hostility, I find it really amusing that an experienced editor of nearly 4 years like me, with 23 thousand edits, 36 articles created (none of which have been deleted yet, one was moved by me and another was deleted to make way for a move), and participation in 62 AfDs (of which only 5 went the opposite way as I voted; 15 of which I was the nom) can't even keep his article on Wikipedia. All that knowledge of Wikipedia's policies and experience with the community don't matter for anything in the face of the WikiBuracreacy machine. Imagine what it must be like for new editors, who just get plain streamrolled. AfD is ridiculously broken and despite what closing admins claim, it is very much a popular vote, with more weight given to bluelinked names and those who linked the most WikiAcronyms. I could easily canvas by saying it's being deleted by Pro-Trumpers or whatever reason, but I'd rather maintain the integrity of the encyclopedia than be like those who would twist it in their image.

Anyway this will probably be my last reply on this page because at this point the votes just get more ridiculous. I used to have a lot of faith that the processes of Wikipedia always worked for the best, that the community was rational-minded and valued the encyclopedia above all else, but I was naive. I'll make sure to not write an article that literally has gotten thousands of views and been linked from all over the web, wouldn't want to serve our readers. I'll stick to obscure garbage that nobody cares about. Wouldn't want to put effort into something that anyone whose personal views were offended could get deleted with any flimsy reasoning. Creating things takes effort, destroying them, none. Opencooper (talk) 11:30, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Please just let the process run its course; we can all make mistakes and the closer should evaluate our arguments and determine which make sense and the resulting consensus. Your contributions are welcome and this is not against you as an editor (and is independent of your other contributions). —PaleoNeonate – 19:35, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

• Weak Keep Finding a few media sources (and no RS do not have to be academic). [8] [9] [10]Slatersteven (talk) 12:29, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
• Comment. Please get your facts straight. This is not a neologism, it has been used in by reliable sources and included in a dictionary. This does 'NOT have the same meaning as lone-wolf terrorism, it has a distinct definition, so a merge is out of the question. The issue is purely whether it is a simple dictionary definition or a topic capable of expansion to minimum start-class. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  15:01, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
• Comment: I have added discussion of the concept and examples, based on material in a scholarly 2017 book by a criminologist and a sociologist. -- Gpc62 (talk) 05:00, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
• Revisiting this neologism. Under WP:NOTDIC and WP:NEO we need not mere uses of the term, but adequate treatments in secondary sources to build an article that passes WP:GNG. The 2016 Rolling Stone article describes "stochastic terrorism" as: " so-called stochastic terrorism. This is an obscure and non-legal term that has been occasionally discussed in the academic world for the past decade and a half, and it applies with precision here. Stochastic terrorism, as described by a blogger who summarized the concept several years back, means using language and other forms of communication "to incite random actors to carry out violent or terrorist acts that are statistically predictable but individually unpredictable." An "obscure" term defined by an an anonymous blogger.
  

The 2017 book by criminologists Hamm and Spaaij uses a very similar definition, in a two-paragraph section without footnotes. It is the sole scholarly source we have discussing this "obscure" neologism. Hamm and Spaaij go on to use the term to describe the 2010 Oakland freeway shootout by one Byron Williams as having been inspired by a stochastic terrorist, and describing Anwar al-Awlaki and Alex Jones (radio host) as stochastic terrorists. It is, however, the sole scholarly source that we have for this neologism, (Note that source 7 "Quantitative terrorism risk assessment" describes an entirely different use of this phrase.)
Summing up, Note that according to WP:NEO, "finding blogs, books, and articles that use the term rather than are about the term) are insufficient to support articles on neologisms" and that is what almost all sources my searches find amount, mere uses of this rarely-used term. Perhaps, and this is personal research on my part, because this phenomenon is more usually discussed under the legal term "incitement." It does not look to me as though this neologism has received sufficient WP:SIGCOV in the form of detailed discussions of this term as a term, or that there are even any significant number of uses in discussions of terrorism-by-dog-whistle alleged that employ or meniton this term. Given the oceans of ink that have flowed into writing about every aspect of terrorism in recent years, the dearth of discussions or even use of "stochastic terrorism" make it apparent that this is a failed neologism. I continue to opine: delete.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:26, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

• Double-checking myself, I looked for this term in a simple gNews search: [11], 117 hits. I then ran gNews searches on phrases with similar meanings, such as "terrorist propaganda" [12], 292,000 hits. I then searched "terrorist propaganda" + "lone wolf" + radio, this brought up a great deal of WP:RS, WP:INDEPTH coverage of the phenomenon this neologism page describes, articles like Fanning the Flames: Reporting on Terror in a Networked World, in the Columbia Journalism Review [13]; a Brookings report on The Evolution of Terrorist Propaganda: The Paris Attack and Social Media, [14], and the Southern Poverty Law Center's Lone Wolf Report, [15]. These sources do not use the term "stochastic terrorism," although they discuss the phenomenon. Interestingly, a search of the SPLC website, a page with a vast amount of both news coverage and analysis of incitement and lone wolf terrorism, the handful of hits that I got on this neologism were all in reader comments. I am just not finding evidence that this term had gained currency.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:40, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Note that the current version of the page contains ambiguities, grammatical errors, and factual problems, introduced by edits [16] "for clarity" by one of the delete !voters. If the page is kept or merged into another page, those flaws will have to be repaired.

Also note that the book by Hamm and Spaaij contains a 6-page section (complete with a subheading "Stochastic terrorism") that discusses stochastic terrorism, as well as other mentions of the term later in the book. Do not let comments above mislead you into thinking that they have only a "two-paragraph section without footnotes" on the topic. -- Gpc62 (talk) 21:46, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

• The length of their definition, it is followed by by examples, I mention/link to their case examples above. But this is only one book, by authors who are, as far as I know, especially notable. A slender thread with which to support a neologism. This particular sources is acceptable, but that there is so little other WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:16, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
• Six pages in a book about Lone wolf terrorism I might add, and discussed as an aspect of such.Icewhiz (talk) 22:33, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, well, it really is a neologism attempting to define one aspect of lone wolf terrorism.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:38, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

• Note that in this article an anonymous blogger writing on Daily Kos asserts that Osama bin Laden, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, and Sean Hannity are guilty of terrorism.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:38, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
• Weak Keep or Merge into Lone wolf (terrorism) or Radicalization (or something else relevant). Concerned about WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. I thought the terms agitator, inciter, or instigator or synonyms cover much of the meaning. The earliest usage I could find was by G2geek on Daily Kos so I added that post to the article. I think G2geek created the term and G2geek says that too, "So far as I know, my version of this is original as of September 2010 and there hasn't been anything equivalent in the unclassified literature.... I don't know of anything in the open literature discussing the same ideas I'm discussing here. Frankly that wouldn't be the first time I came up with something no one else had apparently thought of before, and I don't say that to pat myself on the back. At least this time the meme is getting traction." Seems like G2geek couldn't find a term to adequately describe what was perceived as happening with these lone wolf attacks. While G2geek had been concerned about attacks on politicians, the July 2010 Oakland freeway shootout was a "local" event for G2geek and probably inspired/crystalized the ideas for the post. Anyone find the earlier reference in September 2010? Google trends tends to confirm the January 2011 post as the start with a peak probably due to Thom Hartmann talking about it. StrayBolt (talk) 07:31, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• I share StrayBolt's concerns about WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. There also seem to be BLP issues with an article describing Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, and Sean Hannity as stochastic terrorists. And sourcing issues with the way this anonymous blogger is cited as a major source of facts. I think we would need a secondary source to cite a blogger as the originator of a concept, but perhaps such a citation can be based on our own research. Nevertheless, I got curious about G2geek because I think we may indeed have, or used to have, articles about notable anonymous bloggers. ]I ran some searches to see whether G2geek is at all notable, but failed to find books, articles or sites included on gNews wrotig about him, or even citing him.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:51, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• Nom Comment. After reading the latest comments, I can't help but thinking that things have got rather off topic. There is no doubt that this is a viable term (it is in a dictionary, and been used by reliable sources). It seems unreasonable to call this a fringe topic, since it has not (yet) been used as part of a conspiracy theory or other fringe viewpoint. Clearly its definition may be an effective duplicate of Lone wolf terrorism, I don't see a consensus on this so far, although there are obvious similarities, there are also differences. My only concern, and the only reason I reopened this after closing it as speedy keep, is that it may not be possible to get this article to start class without borrowing sections from other topics. ^ Wp:DictDef clearly states that a perfectly reasonable term with a valid definition many not be a viable topic on Wikipedia. Therefore I am trying to find a consensus on whether that it is a viable topic. So far there has been a lot of chatter about neologisms and whether a single source supports the definition, I am of the viewpoint that it does, certainly well enough to include this on Wikitionary. However there seems to be no consensus on whether this actual topic is beyond that of a definition, the existing article is a stub, and it is unclear if it could be expanded. If I was to close this now, I would merge it into a new section of lone wolf terrorism as a anchored redirect. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  14:12, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• It is WP:FRINGE to equate Dog-whistle politics with terrorism, neither the law nor mainstream media make such equations. And it is not unusual to bring s up BLP issues at AfD. Or teh fact that an article is heavily sourced to a non-notable anonymous blogger.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:01, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• Note that being in "a" dictionary does not confer notability as per WP:GNG or WP:NEO, nor does the fact that the term had been used in a small number of articles. What is needed are multiple sources discussing the term qua term. If sufficient such sources are fond, it could be merged into another article, I owuld favor lone wolf terrorism.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:50, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• One should note it is barely a dictionary term. Making dictionary.com, but not Merriam-Webster. The term itself was picked up by the media approx. twice (usually to support the "lean" - as stochastic terrorism sounds more serious than incitement), and is not in use by academics nor in routine use by the media. Redirecting to Lone wolf (terrorism) could work.Icewhiz (talk) 15:03, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comments (1) "its definition may be an effective duplicate of Lone wolf terrorism" -- this is simply false. Yes, stochastic terrorism is closely related to lone wolf terrorism. It is not a "variant" or a "type" of lone wolf terrorism. This is not "a distinction without a difference", it is central to the very definition of the term. It is unfortunate that the discussion and the page are being muddied with this fallacy. In Hamm & Spaaij's terms, stochastic terrorism is the "indirect enabling" of acts of violence. It is not the acts of violence themselves. Lone wolf terrorism is one specific type of act of violence.

(2) "What is needed are multiple sources discussing the term qua term." Academic David S. Cohen writing in Rolling Stone. Hamm and Spaaij, academics writing in a scholarly book. Both include "discussions of the term qua term".

(3) "is not in use by academics" -- see (2).

Whoever closes this discussion: please be alert to this continual repetition of fallacies used in the arguments against "keep". I don't live my life on wikipedia so I haven't taken the time to try be exhaustive about pointing out all of them. Those 3 are just the ones that jump out in the most recent comments. -- Gpc62 (talk) 18:06, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• The discussion in Rolling Stone is brief and cites the definition to an anonymous blog. Hamm & Spaaij is an academic source, alas it is the only WP:RS that discusses this term in WP:INDEPTH. Of course it fits within lone wolf terrorism, it is one type of "call" in the call and response dynamic that constitutes lone wolf terrorism, the dog whistle that makes some lone wolves attack. To the closing editor the questions here, as I see it, are 1.) whether there is sufficient sourcing to keep this term at all. and 2.) whether citing sources that - aside from Hamm & Spaaij - use (not define or discuss, merely use) this term, is problematic because they use it to accuse a series of living public figures: Donald Trump, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, and Sean Hannity, of being "stochastic terrorists." dog whistling, of course, is defined as "incitement" and not as a type of "terrorism" by law in the U.S. and other western countries. Without using such sources, we are left with an article (rephrase: we are left with an article about a WP:NEO in which the definition of the neologism is) sourced to blogs and a single academic book.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:28, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• cut and paste relevant Rolling Stone text in full: "In other words, what Trump just did is engage in so-called stochastic terrorism. This is an obscure and non-legal term that has been occasionally discussed in the academic world for the past decade and a half, and it applies with precision here. Stochastic terrorism, as described by a blogger who summarized the concept several years back, means using language and other forms of communication "to incite random actors to carry out violent or terrorist acts that are statistically predictable but individually unpredictable." Note however, that a User:StrayBolt (above) searched for and failed to locate academic uses going back that far; as did I.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:32, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I can confirm that this term has not been used in a single academic journal since 1999. This is not to say it hasn't been discussed, nor does it cover any speeches, keynote presentations, academic events or anything that is not a digital journal. I maintain that this is a viable definition and the issue at hand is, as stated before, whether this dictionary definition merits an article. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  19:54, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  13:37, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• Revisiting my assertion that this is a failed neologism, a gNews search on this phrase has the August 2016 Trump dog-whistle at the top of the page [17] while a gNews search by date [18] is notably thin - 1 hit a month thin - and some of the hits , like The Salt Lake Tribune, DCist are to reader comments. Most, however, are to avowedly partisan media Shareblue, ThinkProgress. There was one cluster of hits in 2017, in April, when UPI ran a story [19] listing this as one of 300 new words added to Dictionary.com. No SIGCOV ensued. Nor do other dictionaries appear to have followed suit. In short the dearth of use of this term in a year when the news ifs filled with stories about terrorism and incitement to terrorism supports the idea that this is a failed neologism. It lacks both use and WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:36, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• Addendum. There are 3 hits on gBooks in addition to Hamm and Spaaij. However, one is a self-pub. from Lulu.com, and the other two merely tightly quote and cite material discussed above, adding no sources or analysis.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:07, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Its toosoon to expect it be in other dictionaries yet anyway, the more established ones take longer to add new words.  --- Α Guy Into Books™ § (Message) -  21:30, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• This Google trends chart doesn't show notability but it does show curiosity about "stochastic terrorism" compared with the related lone wolf terrorism and dog whistle politics terms. Some of the peaks are higher (matching the stories already mentioned), but the average is lower. StrayBolt (talk) 03:40, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure much can be gained from google trends here as all topics related to terrorism spike pretty uniformly, interestly the topic 'incitement' charts roughly equal, as does lone wolf and terrorism, but with much higher volumes.  --- Α Guy Into Books™ § (Message) -  20:18, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

• Delete -- does not meet WP:NEO; this term is not yet sufficiently notable for a stand-alone article. There's no depth of coverage; WP:TOOSOON applies. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:08, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

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