Talk:Stochastic terrorism/Archive 1

Archive 1

Sources

Please see my userspace draft for a previous revision of this article. Since then, a number of new sources have appeared making this definitely notable and not just a neologism:

• NYT Opinion Piece (if it's in the NY Times, you've definitely hit the mainstream)
• Quartz
• Pell Center - see article
• The Verge
• Pacific Standard - see article

Some of these sources like the Quartz and Pell ones look at the term in depth, and so are more than passing mentions. These are in addition to previous sources (Raw Story also goes in-depth):

• Rolling Stone
• Raw Story
• Vox
• Salon
• CNN

Also in print sources:

• The Age of Lone Wolf Terrorism (published by Columbia University Press)
• Out for Queer Blood (published by McFarland)
• Bitch Planet Triple Feature (interview of Jamais Cascio published by Image Comics)

Opencooper (talk) 21:37, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Old deleted version restored

I asked to restore the old version and have replaced the recent stub with it. Over the past year, there have been several news stories using the term. Maybe they will be sufficient for WP:GNG. StrayBolt (talk) 22:47, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Can we PLEASE talk about solving definition conflicts?

There is much confusion and debate over a series of terms used in different ways by different sources. Folks, it is of little use to our readers to have advocates for one definition or another zapping the entries at Wikipedia and Wiktionary, and replacing them with their POV on on a contentious subject.

The term "Scripted Violence" was used in social science for over a decade before the terms "Stochastic Violence" and "Stochastic terrorism," were coined by an anonymous blogger. Now all these terms are swirling around. Now we have to sort out the various definitions and usages. All the terms are now in print someplace. Scripted Violence Scripted Terrorism Stochastic Violence Scripted Terrorism I have suggested disambiguation pages at both Wikipedia and Wiktionary. These so far just get deleted or listed for deletion. Can we please move to discussion solutions? Chip.berlet (talk) 02:51, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

My understanding is Woo's "stochastic terrorism model" (or "stochastic terrorism risk model") is the usage you had added and was at the end of the old version (now in-place). There are a few sources that reference that term. Current popular press has used the blogger's usage. I am not familiar with your usage of "scripted violence". There have been other terms like "provocateur" (general English usage, not undercover agent)[1] or "agitator". StrayBolt (talk) 06:13, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Stray Bolt. Much improved entry. I think a disambiguation page can help draw the distinctions between Stochastic terrorism and Scripted Violence. Here is an detailed explanation of how to keep two related terms on Wikipedia:

The term “Scripted Violence” has been used for over 20 years in social science

When a man in a Las Vegas hotel room shoots into a crowd of otherwise anonymous concertgoers, that’s a clear example of the method of Stochastic Terrorism

When a man walks into a synagogue or church and shoots people because of their religion or race after hearing conspiracy theories about Jews, the clear outcome is Scripted Violence.

The term “scripted violence” has been used in social science for some 20 years to describe how rhetoric can produce attacks on people labelled as threats to the well-being of the nation. It is the most fatal example of demonizing the “Other.”

Here is the problem. The term “Stochastic Terrorism” was coined by an earnest anonymous blogger http://stochasticterrorism.blogspot.com/ who wrote an eloquent essay without doing any social science research. Alas, journalists failed to fact-check the concept in social science, where the term “Scripted Violence” has been used for decades.

The term “Stochastic Terrorism” has become popular in risk management studies and in the study of terrorism, where the idea is used to describe terrorism where the target and date are “random” and “unpredictable” and he terrorism often used to destabilize a government or society.

“Scripted Violence” is a social process. It is when demonizing rhetoric from high status political figures leads to violence against the scapegoats being identified as enemies of the nation.

“Stochastic Terrorism” is what indirectly links the enablers and an act of terrorism.

The word “stochastic” means random and unpredictable. The possible outcome of the terrorist murders in Pittsburgh was not unpredictable—the date and location were unpredictable. Yet the "indirect enabling" of terrorists was real.

As one person noted on Wikipedia:

For example, in their 2017 book, criminologist Mark S. Hamm and sociologist Ramón Spaaij discuss stochastic terrorism as a form of "indirect enabling" of terrorists. They write that "stochastic terrorism is the method of international recruitment used by ISIS", and they refer to Anwar al-Awlaki and radio host Alex Jones as stochastic terrorists.

I am suggesting that the two terms can co-exist.

The methodology of Stochastic Terrorism can produce the outcome of Scripted Violence. Chip.berlet (talk)

See also Wiktionary discussion at [2]. Equinox ◑ 12:38, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I think the opening sentence needs to reflect the fact that while the term Stochastic Terrorism started as an "obscure and non-legal" term from a well-meaning blogger who had not researched existing social science literature, it is very clear that the term has at least migrated into serious studies of terrorism and risk management. I think removing that description while keeping a reference to the Rolling Stone article would be a good change. Also, I think there should be at least a mention crediting the anonymous blogger for inventing the term. The blogger has posted some other statements explaining his idea. Comments?Chip.berlet (talk) 18:48, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Clean-up of article

I suggest the following sections for this article:

• A brief summarizing introduction
• Definition of stochastic terrorism (I posted my work on this)
• History (evolution) of the usage of the term (this would be an edit of the current "Terminology" section).
• Stochastic terrorism versus lone wolf attacks
• Examples (historic and contemporary)
• Legal aspects

Does this seem reasonable? Are there other topics which should be added? Schrodinger's gateau (talk) 15:52, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

History of the Term

The mathematician and catastrophist Gordon Woo introduced the term in published form in 2002. In the article, he briefly described a "Stochastic Terrorism Model". In his short explanation of the model he emphasized the idea that the media's reaction to a terrorist attack as one of the elements, but not the only element, that may have an important influence on the timing of attacks in a terrorist program. While describing some of the elements of a theoretical stochastic model that would be used to estimate the probability of a terrorist attack he states: "The absolute number of attacks within a year, i.e. the rhythm of terror, might ultimately be determined as much by publicity goals and the political anniversary calendar as by the size of the terrorist ranks". The idea that this original concept of stochastic terrorism is used by Gordon Woo "to suggest a quantifiable relationship between seemingly random acts of terrorism and the goal of perpetuating fear through mass media’s coverage of the violence." is a misinterpretation of his concept.

Schrodinger's gateau (talk) 15:09, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

A subsequent article is referenced which supports the updated interpretation. Schrodinger's gateau (talk) 20:26, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Lead sentence & definition

The lead sentence, "the public demonization of a person or group resulting in the incitement of a violent act, which is statistically probable but whose specifics cannot be predicted" is a direct quote from dictionary.com. Either we should enclose this in quotes, or put the definition into our own words. Two definitions offered by Wired are "acts of violence by random extremists, triggered by political demagoguery" and "the use of mass media to incite attacks by random nut jobs".

From my understanding of the underlying sources, the key acts that differentiate "stochastic" from "regular" terrorism:

1. A public figure or group disseminates attack(s) against a perceived enemy using mass-media, using statements that are generally protected free speech.
2. A "lone wolf" individual, generally not a member of a terrorist group, absorbs this free speech, perceiving it as implicit marching orders.
3. This "lone wolf" commits a terror attack against the perceived enemy.
4. The public figure can plausibly disclaim the attack, as they did not explicitly call for violence. The public figure cannot be prosecuted for his or her statements, as these do not meet the legal definition of incitement (see e.g. Brandenburg v. Ohio). "That's not inciting; I'm just saying what my opinion is."
5. It is not possible to predict each individual act of violence, but "more demonizing" means more "random" terror attacks. These attacks observed as a collection have a statistically valid relationship, even if individual attacks are too random to predict.
6. The public figure may or may not knowingly use this technique to attack and intimidate enemies. The enemies receive physical attacks, (online) harassment, and death threats. This can have a chilling effect, as many victims do not have the resources for adequate security.

Combining the above, "an act of terror (3) against a perceived political enemy (1), committed by a random individual who was inspired by public demagoguery (2), but without a direct causal link (5), meaning the instigator's rhetoric does not meet the legal definition of incitement (4)."

Alongside the Cincinnati FBI field office attack, we could also mention the October 2018 United States mail bombing attempts and attack on Gabby Giffords (both are supported by existing sources). These were the (predictable) outcomes of pervasive and repeated right-wing attacks against CNN, the Democratic Party, the FBI, etc., even though nobody told the perpetrators to do anything. Another example mentioned on DailyKos is every time Osama bin Laden released statement that "the infidels must pay for their crimes", followed by an "unstable loner" going on a shooting spree.

Here is my rough proposal for the lead:

• Stochastic terrorism is the process by which a public figure or group uses mass-media to attack and demonize perceived political enemies, leading to random terror attacks committed by their supporters. The random, disconnected nature of the violence provides the instigator with plausible deniability, as their public demonization does not meet the legal definition of incitement. While the individual attacks viewed in isolation are not easy to predict, as a whole, the political violence is "statistically predictable but individually unpredictable".

I welcome feedback and wording suggestions.-Ich (talk) 13:17, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

That seems like a good start to me. I think leaving out any reference to lone wolves is a good idea.

This is my initial try:

Stochastic terrorism is a process by which a public figure or group targets a perceived political enemy by using mass-media to denounce and demonize them, this may lead to a random terrorist attack committed by the perpetrator's audience. Whether the instigator's rhetoric leads to a terrorist attack is not predictable, however, it makes the statistical probability of an attack higher. The random, indirect nature of the violence provides the instigator with plausible deniability, as the public demonization of their target does not generally meet the legal definition of incitement. Schrodinger's gateau (talk) 16:55, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

@Ich - these are all great ideas - would love to get some of what you just wrote in a new section in the body as well, especially that last and discussion of the court case. (see Sandbox below)

Very much agree @Schrodinger's gateau re: removing lone wolf term from the intro.

Here's a Sandbox page for us in case anyone prefers to tinker side-by-side with each other. Superb Owl (talk) 18:19, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Beckett example

Adding the removed section about Thomas Beckett murder here since it's generated some disagreement as to whether or not it fits the definition:

The murder of Thomas Becket has been put forward as an example of stochastic terrorism. Thomas Becket was an Archbishop of Canterbury during the 12th century who had a long running conflict with Henry II, King of England, regarding the rights and privileges of the Catholic Church. In June 1170 an archbishop and two bishops, all without a connection to Canterbury, participated in a coronation of Henry II's son. This breached Canterbury's privilege of coronation and in November 1170 Becket excommunicated all three participating church officials. While there are many versions as to Henry II's reaction to this, the historian Simon Schama accepts the account of the contemporary biographer Edward Grim, who gives, "What miserable drones and traitors have I nourished and brought up in my household, who let their lord be treated with such shameful contempt by a low-born cleric?". Upon hearing his speech, four knights traveled to Canterbury to confront and ultimately murder Becket on 29 December 1170. Superb Owl (talk) 00:42, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

You just happened to leave out the explanation that followed, as to why this is obviously not an example of stochastic terrorism:

However, there is no demonization of the target, Thomas Becket, in this speech of Henry II. The instigator and the actors that carried out the attack are not linked solely (or at all) through mass communication but are linked by a household communication with the background of an ongoing, at least professional, relationship between the knights and the king. Lastly, there does not appear to be plausible deniability. According to Schama "To anyone present, the king's outburst could mean only one thing: that he wanted the interminable, insufferable Becket problem to go away. Not necessarily as in six feet under. But if that's what it took, so be it".

The moot point is whether it is permissible on Wikipedia to point out and correct an error that is published by using logic and reason because a published refutation does not exist. Would the use of logic and reason to point out and correct an obvious error in the literature be an example of original research? Schrodinger's gateau (talk) 17:22, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

@Schrodinger's gateau please try to Wikipedia:Assume good faith when you edit. I was leaving space so you could make your case and find reliable sourcing to back it up Superb Owl (talk) 17:54, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

It's a good idea to assume good faith until one gains experience that suggests otherwise. Schrodinger's gateau (talk) 19:49, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Assessment while article still needs clean-up

The following question was posed on my Talk page, but I thing it is better discussed here.

"I am wondering why an article that is one month old and that already has a warning that it may require clean-up because it may be incomplete has been evaluated. This doesn't seem like a positive contribution. - SG Schrodinger's gateau (talk) 19:46, 5 September 2023 (UTC)"

To which I replied:

"@Schrodinger's gateau: Just because an article like stochastic terrorism requires clean-up should not inhibit it being assessed. If one reads the assessment criteria, those even mention that articles may have significant clean-up issues while being assessed. Clean-up is an assessment factor to consider and should be taken into account when assessing the quality of an article. Assessment is ongoing as an article is edited and can be reviewed and changed at any time by any user. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 07:23, 6 September 2023 (UTC)"

To my mind, an assessment reflects the current state of an article irrespective of its "completeness". After all Wikipedia is a work in progress and I think it behoves both the editors and assessors of any article to put the reader first and honestly assess the current quality of an article, not wait until some indeterminate point in the future, once an article is "complete", whatever that might mean. The purpose of having both WikiProjects and content assessment is to improve article quality, and assess where further improvement is needed, not decide when an article is good enough to needs no further improvement. If that were the case, nothing would ever get assessed, because almost every article on Wikipedia can be improved. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 13:51, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I posed my "question" on your talk page because it was my knee-jerk, emotionally-laden response to an action by an editor that I thought was not helpful for the article. The subject, I thought, was not directly related to the article.

To direct things back to the article, how does this assessment put the reader first? What is specifically wrong with the article that it garners a C rating. I'm not arguing with the rating but it would be useful to have as many opinions as possible to make priorities for the article's repair. Why is it rated as unimportant to the Crime (even if it is not a crime) and Terrorism projects? I've read the criteria; I am just wondering why specifically you rated it as unimportant? Schrodinger's gateau (talk) 18:46, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

SG, these ratings truly do not matter. No readers are aware of them, and experienced editors don't care much until it gets to GA or FA status. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:59, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for weighing in FFF. I will consider CD's latest advice but try to move past my obsession with this article assessment. Schrodinger's gateau (talk) 15:01, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

@Schrodinger's gateau: If you check the article history, it was already rated C-class before I rated this as having "Low" importance. Low importance is not "unimportant", and if it was "unimportant" for a particular WikiProject then there wouldn't even be a banner for that WikiProject. Part of the reason the article has a C-class assessment is that it has a clean-up tag that it might be missing information, due to being recently split from the Lone wolf attack article, which it was merged into back in 2018. Another reason is the lack of any support materials, such as an infobox or image, or both. If you look at the crime banner there is a checklist that indicates the areas where improvements can be made. As to why the crime banner is there, this topic is the subject of academic study by criminologists, and in the broader view of things most terrorism is also considered to be crime, and it is the subject of research and intelligence gathering by many law enforcement agencies around the world. I can think of several additional WikiProject banners that could have been added to this article, but I did not consider adding them was really necessary. If you feel the article does not merit a C-class rating, feel free to change it to Start-class. But you need to improve the article sufficiently to address the clean-up requirement and issue of support materials before the article could receive a higher rating. In many respect, class and importance ratings are quite subjective and don't really have an objective standard, although the checklist helps.- Cameron Dewe (talk) 09:14, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Good Morning Cameron: Thank you for your reply, and your advice and ideas. Schrodinger's gateau (talk) 14:57, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

@Cameron Dewe, I have done a significant pass to address most of the issues and hope to have brought the article up to B-class and removed the need for the template - thanks for flagging the issues on this important and timely topic Superb Owl (talk) 07:33, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

@Schrodinger's gateau I see you reverted my edits, including many well-sourced ones. I'm currently examining the parts that I tried to summarize for brevity that you put back in and will make a second attempt to improve the article by reverting your reversion then adding-in some of the pieces from your edit. If you could list them here that would be really helpful, but will try to guess if you don't hoping we can get to an equilibrium. Superb Owl (talk) 22:02, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm placing some original research here that was on the main article in case anyone can find secondary sources that directly make the arguments put forward in these paragraphs.

However, there is no demonization of the target, Thomas Becket, in this speech of Henry II. The instigator and the actors that carried out the attack are not linked solely (or at all) through mass communication but are linked by a household communication with the background of an ongoing, at least professional, relationship between the knights and the king. Lastly, there does not appear to be plausible deniability. According to Schama "To anyone present, the king's outburst could mean only one thing: that he wanted the interminable, insufferable Becket problem to go away. Not necessarily as in six feet under. But if that's what it took, so be it".

=== Non-stochastic terrorism ===

The 1994 Rwandan genocide. Radio Télévision Libre des Mille Collines (RTLM) was a radio station which was controlled by hard-line Hutus; it was important during both the lead-up to the massacre and the massacre itself of Tutsisand their allies. A 1994 study by Harvard Kennedy School researcher David Yanagizawa-Drott reported that, based on areas of broadcast coverage, approximately 10% of the overall violence which was committed during the Rwandan genocide can be attributed to this (then) new radio station. Broadcasts were used to demonize Tutsis by labeling them as a dangerous enemy who wanted to seize the political power at the expense of Hutus and by labeling the Tutsi as inyenzi, meaning non-human pests or cockroaches which must be exterminated. Accompanying this there were, in total, 252 broadcasts that called for Hutus to kill the Tutsis. The presence of demonization of the target and the fact that the only link between the instigators and those carrying out the violence was mass communication is reminiscent of stochastic terrorism but because of the explicit calls for violence removing the element of plausible deniability, this instead, is an example of incitement. Superb Owl (talk) 22:38, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I tried to revert the article because while I agree with some of your edits, you have removed information that is critical to the reader for their understanding. Considering the sum of you changes in my opinion the article was better in its previous form. Is it usual in Wikipedia to make radical changes to an article without any explanations?

Regarding original research: Is it not possible to use logic to explain something on Wikipedia that someone else has got wrong? Should mistakes in the literature be perpetuated because no one has pointed them out in published form? Schrodinger's gateau (talk) 23:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, we have to wait for a reliable source to make the argument before being able to cover it in Wikipedia no matter how logical it seems (see WP:No original Research).

I will give more detailed explanations going forward of changes, including linking to these Wikipedia guidelines pages when making edits but don't hesitate to ask for more clarification on any of the edits made. It can always be made better grammatically, but it's a best-practice to try and preserve the citations unless there are specific issues with a source. Superb Owl (talk) 23:42, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

The article was wordy and some parts were redundant so in need of editing. It is also incomplete. I think that it would be more appropriate that before important edits are made that there is some consensus for those changes or at least an attempt at consensus.

Regarding original research: I could have used the death of Thomas Beckett as an example of stochastic terrorism with a reference to a published article but that would be incorrect information. Is it better to provide incorrect information which is referenced rather than the correct information? Schrodinger's gateau (talk) 23:56, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

@Schrodinger's gateau, we can move the Beckett example to a discussion topic - I see your argument for why it's not a great example and it's only mentioned in one paragraph in that journal article. I'll see if I can find a better historical example.

As for consensus, I prefer to be WP:Bold and make edits while noting major edits on the talk page as I go.

I'm a bit confused as to why you again reverted my last round of well-sourced and documented edits without offering any specifics about what was lacking or could be improved. Can you be more specific around what your issues are with my (and other editors (like @Ich's) edits? Superb Owl (talk) 00:39, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

"Bold" is that how you characterize your efforts? Myself, I prefer WP:collaborative and constructive. I changed it back because overall the original with all its flaws is still better than your revised version. The problem is not that I reverted your well explained edits, the problem is that you were not explaining your edits and there are many that are not an improvement. I understand your point about original research but you're also removing other useful information. I have no problem with Ich or his theology my only problem is what I perceive as your heavy handedness. Schrodinger's gateau (talk) 01:26, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

@Schrodinger's gateau, thanks for clarifying some of your issues and I'm happy to slow down and explain as I go along. I posted to your talk page explaining some of the Wikipedia guidelines that were violated by some of the edits and the old version you have reverted to. Would you like to pursue Wikipedia:Dispute resolution? Superb Owl (talk) 01:32, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

@Superb Owl, you're complaining about what I'm doing while you're doing the exact same thing. I'm editing your changes without explanation but you were editing other people's work without explanation. We both think we are providing a better version.

As I said, the article is obviously flawed, and I understand your point about original research but you're cutting stuff that is important to reader understanding. There were some interesting ideas, that others have contributed, among the flaws but instead of trying to improve what's there you are just removing it. I thought the idea was to go from a stub to an article but you're working in the reverse direction.

I know I am overly sensitive but other editors usually don't have a problem with the way you operate? Schrodinger's gateau (talk) 15:35, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I get why it was frustrating as you're learning about the guidelines that support the need for those edits but I have been thanked by two other editors for my edits on this talk page so in the past 48 hours. An article can only be as long as there is reliable content to support it. In general, we're supposed to avoid quotations and fluff and summarize the main points. There is certainly room for expansion supported by reliable secondary sources if that is your main concern - I plan to add more detail myself around the types of demonization that are common. Superb Owl (talk) 17:53, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

No, the frustrating part was that you were cutting useful information that had proper citations rather than trying to improve it. And that you weren't doing things in a collaborative or constructive manner.

I am still looking for these thanks that you received from other editors. Schrodinger's gateau (talk) 19:44, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

@Schrodinger's gateau I should've checked to see that there was an active contributor in the talk page first and apologize for not doing that and looping you in earlier and looking for consensus.

It seems that we both share the same goals of getting this article upgraded from C-class and rated higher than low-importance. I removed only unreliable sources (e.g. blog posts or sources that referenced text violating WP:No original research) and added new reliable citations. If I made a mistake in that process, please let me know and I'll fix it.

Thanks for raising concerns around the Beckett example and the fear of it becoming a stub again so I can keep working with you to upgrade this article. ps - Here's my thanks log Superb Owl (talk) 00:32, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the lessons on how Wikipedia works...Schrodinger 131.226.10.240 (talk) 16:20, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Continuing article clean-up

The article is still incomplete so I added back the warning Schrodinger's gateau (talk) 20:37, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good to me re: adding back the warning.

As for the lead edit I reverted, the Daily Kos blog is not a great source as it's an anonymous blog post. The sources you removed were somewhat stronger sources, so I reverted that edit for now. It's generally best practice not to remove decent sources.

I will take a look at the lead suggestions you and Ich made once the body of the article has been fleshed-out more so that the lead more precisely summarizes the content. Superb Owl (talk) 22:28, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm ready to add in a couple more sections to the body of the article - let me know if you have any suggestions or ideas around this draft Superb Owl (talk) 22:36, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I stumbled a bit on the phrase "resulting in the incitement"; it could probably be replaced with a "leading to" or something in that vein.

The Daily Kos article is a bit unusual, as it was cited elsewhere as the first place that solidified the concept and terminology. I wouldn't cite it in the lead, as it is published anonymously and without editorial review, but I would still cite it in the body alongside the other good sources that refer to it and deem it important.-Ich (talk) 09:14, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

The current lead is an improvement because it has removed the material that should be in quotes and it is also properly referenced. Your reference regarding plausible deniability doesn't even mention stochastic terrorism.

I think this reference should remain; the reference can be upgraded if necessary while it is in place. Schrodinger's gateau (talk) 22:49, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Good call on the quotes and will circle back to the lead tomorrow after getting these additions to the body published where I added back in The Atlantic article as a source. The lead also doesn't always need citations if it's simply summarizing what's well-documented in the body - how would you feel about going that route with no citations in the lead? Superb Owl (talk) 23:02, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Agreed; I don't think refs are necessary in the lead for now. I would typically only do it if there's "BLP contentious" material.-Ich (talk) 09:19, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

It sounds like we're getting close thanks to on-point feedback from @Ich and @Schrodinger's gateau - final draft of new+expanded sections are ready for review: User:Superb Owl/sandbox/stochastic Superb Owl (talk) 22:20, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

@Superb Owl: @Schrodinger's gateau: Thanks for both of your hard work on this. I've suggested another lede incorporating language and ideas from both of your suggestions, and did a pass on body section to try and adopt some "wiki voice". Once one of you has had a chance to look it over, feel free to merge our sandbox text into the main article space; we can continue to work on it there. I've added the 2022 Buffalo shooting as an example as well. As an aside, when looking for sources, I found a lot of examples of "violent, plausibly deniable rhetoric" (e.g. NYT: "Donald Trump Suggests 'Second Amendment People' Could Act Against Hillary Clinton") but have avoided citing those unless the article itself explicitly describes that speech as "stochastic terrorism". Thanks again for the good discussion and proposals; I'm really proud of the progress we've made.-Ich (talk) 13:11, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help getting this to a place I feel comfortable posting - the edits are spot-on again. Removed a few citations that don't use the term explicitly and will wait to post until tomorrow so @Schrodinger's gateau has a chance to review as well. Superb Owl (talk) 20:19, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I did a few more small changes; please feel free to review them.-Ich (talk) 12:19, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I created a whole new section in the sandbox and incorporated some aspects of the existing page together with our sandbox draft. I did previews on the actual page with the proposed text and fixed some ref issues (e.g. more than one ref was named ":2"). I added in the "Second Amendment people" as a popularizing event in 2016, as it was considered obscure before then and it seems Rolling Stone was one of the first mainstream publications to widely discuss the concept. There's definitely cleanup to be done but absent any objections I'll perform the merge tomorrow and we can continue working further in article space.-Ich (talk) 16:58, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

The article text is now live. Thanks for all your help. I think the article has adequately been improved to warrant removing the cleanup tag so I will do so in the next few minutes; feel free to put it back if you think it still needs to be there.-Ich (talk) 13:42, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Anti-White Racism?

Does the definition of Stochastic Terrorism include the use of anti-white racism by the mass-media as part of the "demonization"? Seems to me that it's not just the speech, but the size of the "megaphone" that defines the term, since the larger the audience, the greater the statistical pool, and the more likely that the demonizing speech will result in stastically definable violence. Therefore it also seems to me that the mass media oulets should be the first place to look for it.2600:1702:5210:EEC0:6139:A95:85D1:54D3 (talk) 16:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Stochastic terrorism from the bible belt

There's a group of partisan pastors in the bible belt that preach spiritual warfare to their congregations. The Bible is used to justify the same conspiracies that QAnon popularized which turns citizens against one another & the Democratic politicians in the government. This movement, led by Michael Flynn, is called "The Reawaken America Tour" & it involves a class of pastors that blend scripture with politics to promote QAnon conspiracy theories. What started as a small Church in Tennessee of 200 parishioners grew dramatically in 2020 when Pastor Greg Locke took to the internet and began pushing the baseless claims about the pandemic being a scam and the 2020 elections being stolen. Although they try to deny having any connection to QAnon, these Evangelical churches have essentially become the Church of Q. Evangelical ministers who still adhere to the traditional Christian message of peace and love are finding themselves at odds with more & more members of their congregations, and some of them have gotten death threats.

SOURCE: VICE TV Debbie Sands (talk) 20:07, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Academic background

This article does not read like the term is used by scientists. It might be helpful to get an insight into who developped it and what the scientific background of this scholar is. It should be mentionned in the introduction and etymology section. 2A02:8109:AA38:A100:91FC:FC57:1A15:405 (talk) 03:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Sources?

Global trends point to increasing violent rhetoric and political violence, including more evidence of stochastic terrorism. The article implies that this is an established concept and that there's evidence supporting its existence and growth. This is an extraordinary claim. What are the sources supporting this? MarioGom (talk) 09:41, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Looking back through the article I could not find supporting sources either at first glance so I removed the sentence from the lede and improved another sentence to not imply that the term has been growing in usage (or there has been more stochastic terrorism) since that source does not make that claim. Will check some of the newer sources to see if I can find discussion of trends. Superb Owl (talk) 20:14, 13 April 2024 (UTC)