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.
Strong keep Although current version would benefit from tightening, we have an article
Right-wing terrorism which defines the scope and shows this is a clearly notable topic. I don't understand the claim that the article is synthesis. It may be the inclusion of some incidents would be synthesis (if RS 1 said x was an incident of terrorism and RS 2 said it was carried out by the far right, and we called it an incident of right-wing terrorism would that count as synthesis?) but how can you say the article itself is synthesis?
BobFromBrockley (
talk)
12:21, 10 December 2021 (UTC)reply
In answer to your first question, yes, that is a synthesis of two sources. Each item added to the list can be sourced, and challenged as NOT a right-wing terrorist attacks by any other editor, because there is "no evidence of definable scope", the relevant line is
"This is a list of right-wing terrorist attacks. Right-wing terrorism includes terrorist acts motivated by neo-Nazi, neo-fascist, white nationalist, anti-Semitism, Christian terrorism, white separatist, anti-abortion terrorism, and ethnonationalist ideologies.[citation needed (July 2020)]"
I think we can easily address that particular cn as the right-wing terrorism article itself has plenty of sources. I don't understand the negative sourcing. If sources say all these attacks weren't right-wing terrorism fair enough, but so long as RSs do mention these attacks as examples of right-wing terrorism, it's a case by case issue not a question of the whole article.
BobFromBrockley (
talk)
13:03, 10 December 2021 (UTC)reply
That is one of the places I thought to look for a reference. For example, SPLC does not arrange its extensive content on hate crimes in a classification 'right-wing' that is defined as being inclusive of the terms mentioned in the list. There is some preliminary discussion at the NOR board, where I suggested
delete? a couple of days ago. ~
cygnis insignis13:31, 10 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete Just a bias media thing trying to call everyone they don't like a Nazi. Right wing politics does not equal "everyone is a Nazis if they disagree with me". The list includes Anti-communism, religious terrorists, "anti-religious beliefs" terrorists, "Opposition to abortion", and every hate crime they could find as long the victim wasn't non-Jewish White. Some of these entries have no deaths and no injuries.
DreamFocus16:31, 10 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment For what it's worth,
Europol's TE-SAT (their annual Terrorism Situation and Trend report, for those not familiar with it) categorizes terrorism into the following (non-mutually exclusive) types: jihadist terrorism, ethno-nationalist and separatist terrorism, left-wing and anarchist terrorism, right-wing terrorism, and single-issue terrorism (though that last one was absent in the latest report).
TompaDompa (
talk)
17:30, 10 December 2021 (UTC)reply
That works, with attribution, for Europe at least. The definitions are clear enough, in this case it ends "Racist behaviour, authoritarianism, xenophobia, misogyny and hostility to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ+) communities and immigration are common attitudes among right-wing extremists." 2021 report. p. 80. ~
cygnis insignis18:44, 10 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep I would oppose the deletion of this article for the same reason I opposed the deletion of "mass killings under communist regimes" in that I don't consider synthesis as it functions as a list article and that deletion of this article could be interpreted as partisan. The issue arises in how we define right-wing terrorism, right wing economically? socially? Islamist extremist terrorist attacks could be considered right wing but so could white supremacist attacks, also there is a time issue, would a group that would right-wing nowadays be considered such when the attack took place etc
TheFinalMigration (
talk)
05:02, 11 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep but remove any attacks for which there is no single reliable source which specifically describes it as both terrorism and right-wing. The topic of right-wing terrorism is itself notable, and right-wing terrorist attacks are often discussed as a group, so the criteria for a list are met. The SYNTH problem is solvable and does not necessitate deletion. The description in the second sentence of the article should also probably be cut entirely, because it implies that
Islamic terrorism, which is often motivated by antisemitism and/or ethnonationalism, would also be included.
Mlb96 (
talk)
07:39, 11 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment - I chose to comment since I'm ambivalent about such lists. Like for a number of sensitive list articles, I recognize how it can be a challenge to get right. It currently at least seems to have a strict inclusion criteria, as all entries link to an existing article. It's also important per
WP:TERRORIST to make sure that reliable sources have described the event as such. The topic is obviously notable (so is far-left terrorism) and whole books have been written. However,
Right-wing terrorism already exists that can certainly provide the best examples of notable events. Presumably, with that article and categories, encyclopedic coverage could be enough. —
PaleoNeonate –
18:50, 12 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment I'm not unsympathetic to the nomination; for example, there's a marked conflation between terrorism and hate crime. Nevertheless, right-wing terrorism is a distinct historical activity, I suspect clean-up here would be possible. Regards, --
Goldsztajn (
talk)
11:17, 16 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Question A number of editors have sensibly suggested that rightly raised SYNTH issue is easily dealt with via reliable sources, e.g.
Mlb96 suggests every listing needs at least a "single reliable source which specifically describes it as both terrorism and right-wing". I wonder if this is necessary where our WP article on the listing describes it as both terrorism and right-wing, citing reliable sources?
BobFromBrockley (
talk)
16:50, 16 December 2021 (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.
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.
Strong keep Although current version would benefit from tightening, we have an article
Right-wing terrorism which defines the scope and shows this is a clearly notable topic. I don't understand the claim that the article is synthesis. It may be the inclusion of some incidents would be synthesis (if RS 1 said x was an incident of terrorism and RS 2 said it was carried out by the far right, and we called it an incident of right-wing terrorism would that count as synthesis?) but how can you say the article itself is synthesis?
BobFromBrockley (
talk)
12:21, 10 December 2021 (UTC)reply
In answer to your first question, yes, that is a synthesis of two sources. Each item added to the list can be sourced, and challenged as NOT a right-wing terrorist attacks by any other editor, because there is "no evidence of definable scope", the relevant line is
"This is a list of right-wing terrorist attacks. Right-wing terrorism includes terrorist acts motivated by neo-Nazi, neo-fascist, white nationalist, anti-Semitism, Christian terrorism, white separatist, anti-abortion terrorism, and ethnonationalist ideologies.[citation needed (July 2020)]"
I think we can easily address that particular cn as the right-wing terrorism article itself has plenty of sources. I don't understand the negative sourcing. If sources say all these attacks weren't right-wing terrorism fair enough, but so long as RSs do mention these attacks as examples of right-wing terrorism, it's a case by case issue not a question of the whole article.
BobFromBrockley (
talk)
13:03, 10 December 2021 (UTC)reply
That is one of the places I thought to look for a reference. For example, SPLC does not arrange its extensive content on hate crimes in a classification 'right-wing' that is defined as being inclusive of the terms mentioned in the list. There is some preliminary discussion at the NOR board, where I suggested
delete? a couple of days ago. ~
cygnis insignis13:31, 10 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete Just a bias media thing trying to call everyone they don't like a Nazi. Right wing politics does not equal "everyone is a Nazis if they disagree with me". The list includes Anti-communism, religious terrorists, "anti-religious beliefs" terrorists, "Opposition to abortion", and every hate crime they could find as long the victim wasn't non-Jewish White. Some of these entries have no deaths and no injuries.
DreamFocus16:31, 10 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment For what it's worth,
Europol's TE-SAT (their annual Terrorism Situation and Trend report, for those not familiar with it) categorizes terrorism into the following (non-mutually exclusive) types: jihadist terrorism, ethno-nationalist and separatist terrorism, left-wing and anarchist terrorism, right-wing terrorism, and single-issue terrorism (though that last one was absent in the latest report).
TompaDompa (
talk)
17:30, 10 December 2021 (UTC)reply
That works, with attribution, for Europe at least. The definitions are clear enough, in this case it ends "Racist behaviour, authoritarianism, xenophobia, misogyny and hostility to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ+) communities and immigration are common attitudes among right-wing extremists." 2021 report. p. 80. ~
cygnis insignis18:44, 10 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep I would oppose the deletion of this article for the same reason I opposed the deletion of "mass killings under communist regimes" in that I don't consider synthesis as it functions as a list article and that deletion of this article could be interpreted as partisan. The issue arises in how we define right-wing terrorism, right wing economically? socially? Islamist extremist terrorist attacks could be considered right wing but so could white supremacist attacks, also there is a time issue, would a group that would right-wing nowadays be considered such when the attack took place etc
TheFinalMigration (
talk)
05:02, 11 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep but remove any attacks for which there is no single reliable source which specifically describes it as both terrorism and right-wing. The topic of right-wing terrorism is itself notable, and right-wing terrorist attacks are often discussed as a group, so the criteria for a list are met. The SYNTH problem is solvable and does not necessitate deletion. The description in the second sentence of the article should also probably be cut entirely, because it implies that
Islamic terrorism, which is often motivated by antisemitism and/or ethnonationalism, would also be included.
Mlb96 (
talk)
07:39, 11 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment - I chose to comment since I'm ambivalent about such lists. Like for a number of sensitive list articles, I recognize how it can be a challenge to get right. It currently at least seems to have a strict inclusion criteria, as all entries link to an existing article. It's also important per
WP:TERRORIST to make sure that reliable sources have described the event as such. The topic is obviously notable (so is far-left terrorism) and whole books have been written. However,
Right-wing terrorism already exists that can certainly provide the best examples of notable events. Presumably, with that article and categories, encyclopedic coverage could be enough. —
PaleoNeonate –
18:50, 12 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment I'm not unsympathetic to the nomination; for example, there's a marked conflation between terrorism and hate crime. Nevertheless, right-wing terrorism is a distinct historical activity, I suspect clean-up here would be possible. Regards, --
Goldsztajn (
talk)
11:17, 16 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Question A number of editors have sensibly suggested that rightly raised SYNTH issue is easily dealt with via reliable sources, e.g.
Mlb96 suggests every listing needs at least a "single reliable source which specifically describes it as both terrorism and right-wing". I wonder if this is necessary where our WP article on the listing describes it as both terrorism and right-wing, citing reliable sources?
BobFromBrockley (
talk)
16:50, 16 December 2021 (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.