Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stochastic terrorism (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 merge to Lone wolf (terrorism). Randykitty (talk) 15:53, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stochastic terrorism[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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)

Deleted at AfD a year ago. Scripted Violence, a very related concept, and an older one, has just been deleted at AfD. There have been new sources, but those are mostly opinion pieces which are not good here. WP:NEO and WP:NOTDICT apply. This term was apparently coined seven years ago by an anonymous blogger with a single blog post. I could not find any serious scholarly articles on this topic. wumbolo ^^^ 23:12, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:32, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:32, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — The concept is discussed in the scholarly book The Age of Lone Wolf Terrorism by Mark Hamm and Ramón Spaaij (Columbia University Press, 2017). They devote an entire subsection ("Stochastic Terrorism", pp 85–89) to discussing the concept and describing a few cases. WP:NEO and WP:NOTDICT do not apply here. The page discusses the concept and its use in much greater depth than a mere a dictionary definition. Gpc62 (talk) 00:33, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Since the last AfD, there have been a multitude of new sources showing lasting impact and that this is not just a neologism:
In addition to this, there have also been print sources:
As well as multiple other references prior, with Raw Story also going in depth:
None of these are opinion pieces. There is a New York Times opinion piece, but the variety, depth, and multitude of other sources is more than enough to demonstrate that the subject meets the notability guidelines. Opencooper (talk) 05:52, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have left an AfD notice on the talk page of User:Chip.berlet, the original re-creator of this article. Opencooper (talk) 05:53, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into terrorism. Terrorism is often random or unpredictable in nature and so the word "stochastic" is redundant. The issue of incitement is separate and best covered under that title. Andrew D. (talk) 14:11, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The word "stochastic" might be redundant if the term "stochastic terrorism" simply referred to random terrorism. But that is not the concept that the term describes, and "stochastic" is not redundant. The issue of incitement is an integral part of the concept, not a separate issue. Gpc62 (talk) 23:18, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep improvements has been made since the last AfD. covers WP:GNG. The concept is discussed in the scholarly book The Age of Lone Wolf Terrorism as well.BabbaQ (talk) 23:25, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Lone wolf (terrorism), a far more widely used term for precisely the phenomenon being described by "stochastic terrorism." The two pages are describe a single phenomenon, except that "stochastic terrorism" puts the emphasis on the ideologues whose rhetoric inspires "lone wolves" to commit crimes, while "lone wolf terrorism" focuses on the individuals who are inspired by these ideologues to commit violent attacks. These two sides of the same coin will make a far more useful article when merged. E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:38, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • E.M.Gregory tried to make this argument last time as well, and the argument starts off with fallacies, as I argued last time. Lone wolf terrorism is not "precisely the phenomenon described by stochastic terrorism." Lone wolf terrorism invariably refers to the act(s) of violence (conventional terrorism) committed by an individual. It may or may not be a result of being egged on by statements in the media. Stochastic terrorism typically refers to the statements made in the media, which then may lead to incidents of conventional terrorism (most often lone wolf terrorism, but it could also be other types of terrorism encouraged by the media comments). Last time E.M.Gregory argued this was "a distinction without a difference." If that were true, calling Donald Trump a lone-wolf terrorist would be equally appropriate as calling him a stochastic terrorist. Gpc62 (talk) 23:18, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The final sentence of this comment conflates the whistler in dog whistle politics with the dogs. But it does show the extent to which this article and its sources -Hamm and Spaaj aside - are dedicated to promoting a neologism defining Donald Trump as a terrorist.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:14, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hamm and Spaaij, your principal source, describe stochastic terrorism as a form of "indirect enabling" of lone wolf terrorism in the opening sentence of the section. Can you specify to what "other types of terrorism" your sources point?E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:09, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 12:35, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think that the coverage and lasting impact and coverage overall is why I continue to think that Keep is the best option. Lone Wolf (terrorism) is to wide of a subject to cover this one as it should.BabbaQ (talk) 14:24, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per E.M.Gregory. SportingFlyer talk 04:54, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Lone wolf (terrorism). Looking at new sources in google-books (none), google-scholar (not much), and google-news (a bit - but coverage saying "Stochastic Terrorism is a little known term but well utilized strategy to incite violence" is not encouraging for notability) - from 2018+ it does not seem that significant sources have appeared for this NEO since the last AfD. The term is closely tied to Lone wolf terrorism in that this is the encouragement of such. Icewhiz (talk) 15:28, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Icewhiz: Cherry-picking a quote when plenty of reliable sources have been shared in this very discussion is pretty disingenuous. Par for the course for AfD standards of course. Opencooper (talk) 02:39, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Up above I wrote: ...Last time E.M.Gregory argued this was "a distinction without a difference." If that were true, calling Donald Trump a lone-wolf terrorist would be equally appropriate as calling him a stochastic terrorist.
E.M.Gregory then replied The final sentence of this comment conflates the whistler in dog whistle politics with the dogs. – which shows he has taken pretty much the opposite meaning to the actual meaning of what I wrote. My whole point is that the dog whistle is different from the dogs. In an English sentence with the structure "If X were Y then Z" the verb "were" signals that the speaker considers that X is not Y. (See: subjunctive or counterfactual.) This type of sentence is typically used rhetorically (as I did here) with Z being something that is manifestly absurd or untrue (but which would be true if X were Y). So I'm considering it to be manifestly absurd to say that "calling Donald Trump a lone-wolf terrorist would be equally appropriate as calling him a stochastic terrorist." The absurdity of that part (Z), along with the fact that Z would follow if X were Y, demonstrates that X is not Y (it is not a "distinction without a difference" to point out that "Stochastic terrorism" is not a form of lone-wolf terrorism. Stochastic terrorism not even a form of terrorism in the conventional, limited sense of the word).
To summarize, I used the absurdity of Z to make the point that X is not Y, and the response from E.M.Gregory says I claimed that Z is true.
It is really tiresome to have to argue these basic points of fact (stochastic terrorism is not lone-wolf terrorism) in laborious detail over and over again, in the face of counter"arguments" that keep missing the point or ignoring the point. Gpc62 (talk) 04:14, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For whoever comes along to decide the fate of this page: I hope they note that among the !votes for Merge, there is one based on a misunderstanding of the term (evidenced by the claim that "stochastic" is redundant); another says "per BabbaQ" when in fact BabbaQ !voted for Keep; and one where the arguments are based on the misconception that "Lone wolf (terrorism) [is] precisely the phenomenon being described by "stochastic terrorism." Gpc62 (talk) 04:31, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stochastic_terrorism_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=873339214"