Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vehicle ramming as a terrorism tactic

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 §FreeRangeFrogcroak 20:49, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vehicle ramming as a terrorism tactic

Vehicle ramming as a terrorism tactic (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 article was made yesterday, November 6, by the same editor who created the 2014_Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu_ramming_attack article with SYNTH/fabrications in its original version and has since sought to reintroduce his choice of terms ("X was a terrorist" among them, which is not in any of the sources he provided) and also attempted to POVize the title of the St-Jean-sur-Richelieu article, which I was able to revert without needing an admin. A summary of this editor's activities can be found here and the nature of the POV problem laid out in the section before that. Gist of the POV problem is that branding this event, and the one in Ottawa, as "terrorist attacks" is under dispute in Canada, where even major media are avoiding such terms in favour of simply "gunman" instead of "terrorist" and "attacks" or "shootings" rather than "terrorist attacks", and the Leader of the Opposition, among many others, has said flatly that they were not terrorist actions but "criminal acts", and a widespread public sentiment is that these were people with mental health problems, not members of any organized terrorist organization of campaign; both had major drug problems and pyschological issues. Another widespread sentiment in Canada is that the use of "terror" words by the government and RCMP is part of a political campaign to mandate/validate the government's long-standing desire for Patriot Act-style laws in Canada, which is widely opposed.

The same editor created Category:Terrorist incidents in Canada in 2014 at the same time as his original heavily-POV first version of the St Jean sur Richelieu articles, which I've been meaning to CfD but held off because of a then-ongoing RM and related discussions on the POV abuse of the "terrorism theme"; I will file the CfD next, as Category:Terrorist incidents in Canada exists, without any date, (and even so IMO should not include the recent events so blithely, to suit someone's "hobby" of creating /hyping politicized articles on "terrorism".

Given the false/misleading edit comments and blatant POV I've seen, I'm of the opinion that the editor in question's user contributions may need extensive review. I believe the article nominated is POV and SOAP in origin, and like the St Jean sur Richelieu article's first edit is rank SYNTH; I have not removed the passage about SJsR in this article (yet) as it is cited (though misleading) but did remove the unrelated NYC hatchet attacks and an unrelated event in Jerusalem. Vehicle-ramming has been a criminal tactic since the automobile was invented.

All of this should perhaps have gone to the POV discussion board, but it has a backlog; and the continuance and propagation of more questionable SOAP articles needs to be stopped in its tracks. Wikipedia should not be used for propaganda campaigns in the way that this has been.}}}Skookum1 (talk) 05:47, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply "well supported by sources" is a blatant lie, as an examination of the intial version of that article vs the sources provided will clearly show, and as I have already referred to. The phrases "was a terrorist attack" and "a 25 year old terrorist" you led off with are nowhere in any of the sources provided, it is entirely your own fabrication/interpretation/distortion. Your track record of terrorism-related articles is of relevance here, as as your attempts to re-introduce SYNTH/POV wordings i.e. more additions of "terrorist attack" and the like; terms which are increasingly avoided in the Canadian media for both events and with good reason, and the government and police items stating that have been widely challenged in the Canadian media and blogspace; your inclusion of it in the creation of this article, which happened on the same day as your attempt to rename the St Jean-sur-Richelieu and also your attempt to reinsert your POV language as as "improve, I hope" and the further claim on the move of the title was "in line with rapidly emerging terminology". Rapidly emerging by your own propagation of it, is my view of the matter; and in the case of the RJsR "rapidly emerging terminology" about that event is "mental illness", not "terrorism". I repeat my suspicion that many of the other articles you have created similarly distorted sources or outright fabricated lines, and your dishonesty here and in the edit history supply ample reason for that suspicion.Skookum1 (talk) 12:59, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is a legitimate debate about whether words like "terrorist" can be properly applied to incidents in which a lone individual who drinks deeply at the well of hatred published by a terrorist group but had no direct contact with members of the group can be called a "terrorist", or whether an action must be carried out by a committed, definable organized group. Wikipedia is not the place for such debates. Let's confine ourselves to reliable sources.ShulMaven (talk) 13:04, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, indeed there is indeed a legitimate debate and a very heated one in Canada about both events, and also about how "terrorist/m" has been used by some for environmental and native groups as well as re anti-Islamic cant; And don't presume to say "let's confine yourselves to reliable sources" when you yourself haven't done that, only imposed your interpretation (SYNTH) of sources, as already pointed out re your initial article's complete fabrication of phrases and terms and your attempt to add "terror" to the title even though it's clear by now that is POV. "Wikipedia is not the place for such debates" is why this article should be deleted, as you are advancing an idea of your own, and have blatantly twisted sources with your own imposed words. Wikipedia is not the place for propaganda campaigns either, and your creation of this article to go with your attempts yesterday at re-POVizing of the St Jean sur Richelieu article and title is very much relevant to your motives and purposes re all the other "terrorism" articles you have made a career out of.Skookum1 (talk) 13:19, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject is part of a growing global trend. The article is not beyond repair, for POV or otherwise. It appears to me the entire essence of this debate is the definition of the word WP:TERRORIST as are most articles on subjects of this nature. sudopeople 19:54, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 8 November 2014 (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/Vehicle_ramming_as_a_terrorism_tactic&oldid=1138741756"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vehicle ramming as a terrorism tactic, released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.