Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of lone wolf terrorist attacks

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 keep‎. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:31, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of lone wolf terrorist attacks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Arbitrary and unsupported selection criteria. To quote Lone wolf attack: "The term lone actor or lone wolf is not a legal term or a social science concept. It is an ill-defined and academically contested construct, manufactured by the media and by radical political actors." Groupthink (talk) 20:55, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Terrorism and Lists. Groupthink (talk) 20:55, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Very tough call. A couple quick search demonstrate that this very clearly meets WP:NLIST as despite the lack of an academic consensus, various reliable media discusses the subject as a group extremely often, often giving multiple examples. But the inclusion criteria seems too subjective right now. We'll clearly need to remove all unreferenced entries. But, given the concerns the nomination brought up, I do not think a single reference for each would suffice -- we'd need to see a few reliable sources describing an attack as such before adding it. Given the complexity of the underlying issue and the risk of DUE weight issues in the list, I think it's in violation of NPOV to keep this list in it's current state, so I'll say weak delete. I'm not sure at this time what a sufficient cleanup would look like, but there's a hypothetical version of this list that could be kept. —siroχo 00:42, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The only hypothetical version I can think of would be, like you pointed out, "List of terrorist attacks the media calls 'lone wolf'", which would be granular to a silly degree. Groupthink (talk) 02:00, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:03, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep While I have no disrespect to the Anti-Defamation League or any of it's contributors, the statement the nominator seems to be pulling from the lone wolf attack article seems to be from a weekly ADL opinion(?) piece from over 20 years ago, so I'm not sure that "Lone wolf" can be declared as this completely meaningless term simply from that (and in fact, it's use in the Lone Wolf Attack article seems to be conferring a bit more 'objectivity' to that quote that it should actually have). Other, somewhat more academic takes on the subject as found here seem to be well defined and certainly not "manufactured by the media or a radical political actor". Obviously there may be some discourse regarding what qualifies as "direct leadership" or "direct outside command", but I feel that that is rather weak grounds to delete an otherwise 'fine' list which serves a good and unique purpose. Essentially, I both do not find the concept to be "ill defined" enough to warrant deletion, and I also do not feel that deletion is warranted to an otherwise useful list simply because some users or editors may disagree with the placement / omission of a couple given cases. A MINOTAUR (talk) 03:40, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Meaningless term? No. But is it an "unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources" term? Also no. However it is a term used to excuse and whitewash certain types of terrorism, such as Christian terrorism, that the western world is uncomfortable with. Groupthink (talk) 03:48, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I... do not quite agree with you here. I appreciate what you are saying - and I agree that it is best to not excuse/"whitewash" any forms of terrorism, but I don't seem to understand how this list does either of those things. This list existing does not stop a list called "List of terrorist attacks motivated by Christian beliefs" from existing (something else might, I'm not sure, but this list won't, and in fact Category:Christian terrorism in the United States already seems to partially serve this function). So your reason for deletion seems to be one more of personal conviction and passion about the subject matter rather than the actual guidelines and merits of article preservation/deletion. A MINOTAUR (talk) 03:56, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I have no personal conviction or passion about the subject matter per se. My concerns are about POV pushing and loaded language. "Lone wolf terrorist attack" is a concept which is so flawed as to be untenable. Terrorist attacks cannot and do not happen in a vacuum. Terrorism is explicitly tied to politics and/or ideology by definition. Even setting that aside, what could an objective, non-arbitrary, verifiable gatekeeping principle be for deciding what is or is not a "lone wolf" attack? Groupthink (talk) 04:21, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  AfD is not really the place to engage in a philosophical debate, so I will only again point to the DOJ PDF which itself outlines (in my view) a perfectly fine, reasonable, and objective (enough) definition for the term "Lone wolf" in the context of "lone wolf terrorist attack". Is there some degree of subjectivity? Of course, the definition is in many way a guideline, just as we editors follow guidelines to determine what articles get kept. Simply because there is potential for disagreement in the term does not de-legitimize any use of it.

  At risk of crowding the discussion this will likely be my last reply, though again I feel that your personal opposition to the term (or even the idea of such a term) is perhaps biasing your position here. The Lone wolf attack article is itself rather flawed (and largely created by one user, apparently a criminology student), though as we are not here for that article discussion regarding it is somewhat lost here. I do appreciate the discussion. A MINOTAUR (talk) 04:36, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I appreciate the discussion as well. We all have our biases: I hate big lists and I cannot lie. But I'll have to agree to disagree with you that my [[Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Selection criteria|selection criteria]] concerns constitute a bias, or at least an unfair bias as I feel you're implying. Groupthink (talk) 07:43, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Addendum:Attached are several other references which include definitions of and 'credible discussion' of "lone wolf" attacks, from sources such as the Hauge, the European Comission, and various academic sources. I do not think it's our place as Wikipedians to try to "overrule" these organizations by making our own conclusions regarding the validity of the term, or simply out of Wikipedia:IDONTLIKEIT - adjacent perspectives. It is a clearly used term by a vast number of governments, academic institutions, and NGOs across the world. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] A MINOTAUR (talk) 16:58, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Groupthink; it's a meaningless term and widely used to whitewash ubiquitous-but-only-in-the-US mass shootings, Christian terrorism and the rise of 21st century fascism and white nationalism in the US. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 14:03, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The article needs a lede that clearly defines lone wolf. Such a definition is not difficult to find in recent literature, and the emphasis on disagreements over the term appear to be WP:UNDUE. Otherwise, the list is relevant and encyclopedic (or as encylopaedic as a List can be, but I gave up on that battle years back). The nomination does feel very much within WP:IDONTLIKEIT, especially with a red-flag, patently untrue assertion that the term wasmanufactured by the media and by radical political actors. The use of the term to describe a person who commits a crime or nefarious act alone, not as part of a group, community or other affinity, dates to Tillotson in 1909. It saw significant use in the sixties (in US and AUS especially if I recall correctly) to describe those who abandoned non-violent groups to take direct action, usually in the form of a terrorist attack. Cheers Last1in (talk) 17:59, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  As stated above, "manufactured by the media and by radical political actors" is not my language, it's language from the Lone wolf attack article. Groupthink (talk) 18:35, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the term and idea is commonly discussed in academic sources per google scholar: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C24&q=Lone+wolf&btnG= Hardyplants (talk) 07:15, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. Blurring and media coverage of the term in our case is acceptable: this list, albeit not strict, is of great value to various kinds of researchers. Suitskvarts (talk) 09:28, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:46, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are multiple sources that discuss this topic. A BEFORE search also shows a lot of results. FlutterDash344 (talk) 21:52, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per others, but mostly on WP:N which I believe this list covers. I think the nom's rationale is on-point about media hyping a word that usually describes a "social outcast" rather academic sources that describe terrorists who act alone. If anything, the page can be moved to something more appropriate, but there are enough sources where this list can exist. Conyo14 (talk) 20:18, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete It seems to violate WP:NPOV in it's current state to me. It seems that there is some WP:DUE concerns with some of the entries. It seems fairly dicey to me whether this meets the criteria or not. But for the aforementioned reasons. I am going to say weak delete. Seawolf35 (talk) 01:57, 6 September 2023 (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.