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 no consensus.  Sandstein  09:58, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Dijon attack[edit]

2014 Dijon attack (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)

Wikipedia is not news. I have to hand it to whoever wrote this article: they do a terrific job at making the reader infer something that isn't there. This was confirmed not to be a terrorist attack yet a single quote by BBC is used to uproot the "official line"; the deployment of troops was the result of a series of unrelated attacks, not this one individually; and only two people were dealt serious injuries, although 11 "looks better" for notability. Not so cleverly, the article bombards us with sources stacked together about other, actually notable, attacks to create the illusion of continued coverage. When we remove the synth and original research, we have no lasting impact. As usual, the media covered the same story but no further analysis was offered. Certainly, the brief, local impact fails WP:GEOSCOPE. Bear in mind, passing mentions don't count toward significant or sustained coverage. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:51, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What's this actually? We all know how much research you do while involving yourself in any AfD. Your mass nominations to delete terrorism related information are likely to be ended as keep. Greenbörg (talk) 18:06, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 05:41, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nom was wrong in assertion about the troops, as article now shows, impact was immediate changes in security protocols & more troops on the streets. Wrong in asserting that absence of terrorism was "confirmed - local prosecutor chose not to investigate for terrorism, but major media and terrorism experts see terrorism as causative, with ideological influences perhaps preying on a weak mind. Nom's asessment of ongoing coverage was a personal interpretation of policy.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:27, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why was my opinion removed?

  • @TheGracefulSlick:, note that proper procedure is to flag an iVote by an SPI; not to delete it. You should revert your deletion, and tag it SPI.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:11, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • TheGracefulSlick, you really should restore the user comment you deleted; not good form. Also, I looked at the account, but it was not obvious to me that it's an SPA; might just be a new editor.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:38, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gregory don't act dunce. I cannot delete an article myself. An admin always looks at a PROD tag; there is nothing alert about it nor particularly relevant.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:03, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention the rationale for removing the PROD tag was ludicrous. AusLondonder (talk) 14:06, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nope, it changes nothing. You found a book that mentions it in the footnotes in one sentence and claim its continued coverage. It's actually called a passing mention.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:01, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is the sum total of coverage in one of these two sources " on December 21, 2015, an unnamed 40-year-old ran over 11 pedestrians across the city of Dijon, France, while shouting “Allahu akbar,” claiming he was “acting on behalf of the children of Palestine,” and brandishing a knife. Police knew the assailant for previous minor offenses, and he had spent time in psychiatric services. Due to the psychiatric history of the assailant, authorities deemed the attack not to be an act of terrorism." It does not say that 'experts' characterised the attack in any way at all, either agreeing with or disagreeing with Fr authorities. Even if it did, it would not justify the article since the content would be more useful elsewhere. Pincrete (talk) 18:36, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • BLP? Perp has never been named, except by use of a police alias.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:00, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note also that there was immediate impact, in the form of new orders to the French police to carry weapons and wear their protective vests, and the addition of 300 soldiers to security patrolling the streets of French towns.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:00, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - More inaccuracies. The incident is "regularly discussed" as a case of mental illness; passing mentions do not change that and the official ruling suddenly. The impact Gregory claims was the result of a culmination of several (unrelated) incidents, not this one in particular. I'm very disappointed Gregory that you are manipulating the sources in such a way. I know you can do better and more honest work.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:06, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to reported articles in Le Monde, the BBC, the Times of London, the Times of New York and other media I did not add, as a direct response to the 20 December 2014 Tours police station stabbing, this attack on 21 December, and the 22 December 2014 Nantes attack on the city's Christmas market, those new security orders and measures were enacted. Also Note that it is the fact that French authorities ruled this non terrorism related, describing it as mental illness related, has in itself produced substantive, ongoing coverage of this attack as journalists and academics consider the idiocy of regarding motivation as an either/or quesiton (either he was motivated by ideology, or he was just mentally ill) when it can obviously be both. And, of occurs, incident is also regularly discussed and/or mentions as an ISIS-inspired attack, as an example of vehicle ramming as a terrorism tactic, and among recent terrorist attacks in France. Do note that these articles in mainstream media now seem to uniformly frame this as a terrorist attack, at least, every one of the dozens of articles form 2015, '16 and '17 that I scanned did so. there were many more that I did not read. Lots more info can be added to the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:35, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mental illness, terror, or any other motive - is not relevamt assessing notability. In fact even if this were a non-crime (but origianlly though to be likely a crime) the actual turn of events would be irrelevant per wp:ncrime. What is relevant here is SIGCOV and NOT.Icewhiz (talk) 20:15, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The sources do NOT say that there was any direct response by Fr authorities to these events. The BBC in particular simply says that changes were made "following" these events. Nothing in those sources implies causation, simply sequence. We have no idea whether there was any connection at all. Pincrete (talk) 12:43, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - Editors do not be fooled by the inaccuries and passing mentions Gregory added to the article. If anything, all he did was create major BLP issues, framing the accused as a terrorist despite RS stating otherwise. "Nothing fancy" indeed, everything came from passing mentions, sometimes less than a sentence. It creates an illusionary presence of continued coverage but I hope any additional voters see through this.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:02, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In what sense does the FT say this was "Isis-linked"? In that an actual link to Isis was discovered or merely that 'press' linked the event to Isis? or Isis claimed the event? The statement on its own is fairly meaningless. (££) I am unable to access the source. Pincrete (talk) 19:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
here is part of the FT text: " One reason is what Francois Hollande, president, describes as the state of war between his country and Isis. France is the European nation that has most vigorously supported military action against the Islamist militant group. Also, as Isis's self-proclaimed caliphate is pushed back in Syria and Iraq, striking back against such "far enemies" has become central to its strategy. French bombs began falling on Isis on September 19 2014. Four days later Abu Mohammed al-Adnani, the group's chief propagandist, put France centre stage as he called for reprisals. "If you can kill a disbelieving American or European - especially the spiteful and filthy French - then rely upon Allah, and kill him in any manner or way, however it may be," he said. Three months later, as many French citizens began their Christmas holidays, the first Isis-linked attacks began: three policemen were stabbed in Tours, and two vehicles rammed into crowds of pedestrians in Dijon and Nantes." This is a reported article, not an opinion piece.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:09, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes thanks for the text, I note that the first (as claimed above and previously in the article) has miraculously now become among the first. I didn't say it was an opinion piece, I said it was vague as to what is meant by "Isis-linked". Linked in what way to Isis and by whom? The sentence implies much but conveys nothing in the way of substantial info. Pincrete (talk) 20:24, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is part of a continuing pattern to delete information on terrorist style attacks. Such attacks are often planned and engineered to hide any obvious political motive to cause authorities to blame the attack on a personal issue or mental illness. The severity of the attack and significant coverage is what makes this attack notable. Such attacks should be just as notable regardless of whether a terrorist motive has been established. Under such strict rules, even the Las Vegas Attack cannot be classified as terrorist until a motive is established even though it's quite obvious creating terror, probably for some hidden political agenda we don't know about, was the motive. The point of a clandestine attack is to hide any connection to an identifiable political entity or movement and make it look like an accident or a lone crazy person so that there will be no target to retaliate againstBachcell (talk)
Bachcell, the usual/legal definition of 'terrorist' is not simply that it 'causes terror', otherwise any school shooting or frightening crime or serial killing would be included. The usual definition is that the act had a conscious political intent. There would be no point in 'hiding' motives in such a case, since the whole intent is to 'send a political message'. Pincrete (talk) 12:51, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Authorities of a locale facing terror attacks, may have an interest in suppressing that the cause is terror, as if the motivation is suppressed than the terrorist's message and intent to cause terror induced behavioral changes may be averted. So yes - there is a point (from a counter-terror viewpoint) to hide or obscure an alleged terrorist intent. That said - in terms of Wikipedia notability - it is completely irrelevant whether it is or is not terror - what really matters (if it is not NOT) for criminal or war acts - is SIGCOV.Icewhiz (talk) 13:00, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Closing admin please ignore Bachcell's highly POV and inaccurate !vote. I recommend closing this within the usual seven days as I see no progress made from such inappropriate comments.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 13:36, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • E.M.Gregory, please pardon my French, but are you fucking kidding us? First of all, you're citing a publication that comes out of West Point, and if it's "academic" it's not academic in the sense that academic journals are academic. Second, and this really gets my goat since misquoting or partial quoting is one of the first things we discuss in Freshman Comp, you forgot to finish the sentence, like the part (also on p. 5, in the same column) where it says, Due to the psychiatric history of the assailant, authorities deemed the attack not to be an act of terrorism. Your authors, and you, are suggesting that "the authorities" (oh dear--THE DEEP STATE???) are somehow part of a conspiracy to re-categorize "real" terrorist attacks as mere psychiatric incidents? Oh, sorry, "the tendency to overuse mental health problems as a ‘silver-bullet’ explanation for terrorist involvement"--that sounds better of course. Sorry, but no--not until you find a much, much better publication than this. Until then, "the authorities" win. Drmies (talk) 18:04, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a respected publication with an independent editorial board, involving the academic social science department at United States Military Academy. Authorities downplaying terror event, wt least in real time, is actually an effective anti terror strategy (if no one knows it was a terror attack... no real impact if physical damage is small). Regarding mentally unstable, retarded, or children perps - there are legal issues with charging the perps (as opposed to whomever inspired them) with terror charges as they often do not understand their own actions. There have been several child (as young as 8 I believe) Boko Harem suicide bombers. In the Palestinian suicide bomber wave (1-2 decades ago) there were several retarded and mental perps (and some survived... low skill perps are unpredictable. Many of them were not trusted by their operators to pull the trigger, so they were remote\time detonated. Some were caught before. Some had botched bombs...)... When these perps are captured, charging them is complex - some really have no real understanding of their action.Icewhiz (talk) 18:25, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Icewhiz, that analysis is really exciting, but we're not in a seminar here. BTW "retarded" is a word used only by the insensitive. Drmies (talk) 21:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If this is the source being discussed here: Is there a Nexus Between Terrorist Involvement and Mental Health in the Age of the Islamic State?. The total content is 4 short lines long and is wholly sourced within that 'research' to a standard BBC news item describing the event, there is no original 'academic' content at all. Discussion about the use/misuse of this source is here. Pincrete (talk) 19:25, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The authors of this article state plainly that this attack in Dijon is an example of the tendency to try to dismiss the possibility of terrorism altogether in cases where a confirmed diagnosis exists. That is the analysis of these two academics in a WP:RS. Please do not willfully misunderstand the fact that an individual can simultaneously be mentally ill and be inspired to commit a crime by an ideology. But the point is that this a WP:RS discussion of an aspect of this vehicle ramming attack by two academics in an academic policy journal.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:10, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Courtesy ping for Drmies. Gregory it's rather foolish to accuse an editor in good-standing (Drmies) of attacking you in your edit summary.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:26, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • TheGracefulSlick, E.M.Gregory is a big boy/girl, just like me; that edit summary isn't very bothersome; by "attack" I am sure they meant "attack on statement about academic source supporting argument that this was a terrorist attack and thus should be kept". (I'm not sure why an event should be kept if it's a terrorist attack but not if it's by a mentally ill person, but I'm sure that's somewhere in our POV policy.) E.M.Gregory, I don't think you understand, really, what an "academic journal" is--this Sentinel isn't one, until proven otherwise. And Icewhiz, this goes out to you too. Have you seen the editorial board? Are you going to argue, somehow, that that editorial board is not tied to the militariness of one of the most well-known and oldest military institutions in the country? Who painted the lion? Take it to RSN; I have no doubt we can envisage the conclusion: it may well present reliable facts, but it is not going to be accepted as an unbiased publication. In no way. Drmies (talk) 21:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

E.M.Gregory, of course it is possible for someone to be both mentally ill and a terrorist, however the source says nothing at all about whether that general proposition applies HERE. They could hardly do so since they aren't psychologists and have had no contact with the accused nor his medical records. You, are the only one WP:SYNTHing that the general proposition applies to the Dijon case. The source makes no such claim, it says nothing about his mental health beyond the fact that he had previously repeatedly been hospitalised. My previous post was trying to move detailed discussion about this source to talk, where it belongs, but you keep repeating the same quote in bold, as though no one had read it the first time. Do these authors not know that when a person has a certain degree of mental ill-health, no criminal investigations CAN proceed? Pincrete (talk) 21:44, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies, I think a bigger issue than the independence of this source is that it says nothing about THIS event. It is a general article about mental health/terrorism by two people with no medical training and no knowledge of this event or the accused's medical records. Pincrete (talk) 21:44, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pincrete, I saw your note above on the few sentences sourced to the BBC--yeah, that doesn't cut it. That's how you write an opinion blog piece, not an academic article. Drmies (talk) 21:49, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion misses the point, which, as Drmies states, is that in re:notability, it is not relevant whether this was a crime committed because the perp was utterly deranged, or a crime committed by an individual with a history of mental illness who was not so ill that he was lost to reason and was inspired by propaganda. All that matters to this discussion is that sourcing exists to pass WP:NCRIME.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:01, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the 'propaganda' to which he was 'lost', was apparently a news item about Chechneya. The content discussion is a direct result of attempts to attribute significance to this event which sources simply do not support. Pincrete (talk) 08:12, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except Greenbörg there was no in-depth analysis, just a brief mention and gross inaccuracies as a few editors have already stated after reviewing the sources. Don't be fooled by the hastily fabricated window dressing. I know you can see through it.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:34, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Responding to Grecefulslick's assertion by listing a few of the WP:INDEPTH source articles about this attack:
  • You give wall of text a new meaning E.M.Gregory. Can others be allowed to comment here without you trying to mislead them? You have already inserted your inaccuracies into the "article" (a fringe piece at this point) and I think the AFD should be spared these long lists and replies. How about we mutually agree to stop commenting unless we are pinged?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:26, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is that a no? Can you speak English for a second and answer the question, please? The irony of you invoking the hammer never ceases to make me chuckle E.M.Gregory, so thank you.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:48, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE is defined as coverage that consists of "further analysis or discussion" and of the use of an attack as a case study: "If an event is cited as a case study in multiple sources after the initial coverage has died down, this may be an indication of lasting significance." which, as you read here, is also a type of WP:LASTING impact. This attack has been cited as a case study in several academic sources, and in multiple pieces of serious journalism; some of the journalism is listed just above this comment.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:20, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coretheapple certainly a few editors here disagree. Can you describe the "significant" repercussions resulting directly from this incident? It seems every single editor here failed to see them.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:49, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The contents of 2014_Dijon_attack#Impact are sufficient, methinks, to rise above being a routine auto accident in which the driver had too much on his mind. Coretheapple (talk) 22:11, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If anything, the contents of that section illustrate that the incident is not independently notable, only being mentioned because it was an incident involving a vehicle at a time when there were notable terrorist attacks involving vehicles. Cjhard (talk) 22:28, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Coretheapple I appreciate the response even though I happen to disagree. Those immediate "impacts" (routine security measures) had no long-term significance to a wide region; none of the precautions were a direct response to this incident but rather a series of unrelated attacks. I understand it is somewhat deceptive and hope you will reconsider your assessment.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:33, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly. A series of unrelated attacks, as I said. Thank you for remphasizing that. It's still an immediate impact as I stated with no long-term significance so thank you for not even notices that in your "fact check".TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:45, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the one hand, I understand your point. On the other hand, those aren't exactly parallel examples. The first two murdered a bunch of people, and the third guy conducted an intermittent terror campaign for many years. This article is about a much smaller-scale situation. Lepricavark (talk) 05:06, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not for lack of effort. In this incident five separate locations were targeted with the car in a 30 minute spree.Icewhiz (talk) 05:15, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Huldra's argument for deleting this crime is that perp has “serious and long-established psychiatric issues”. I was simply pointing out that this is not a valid argument. We have scores, possibly hundreds of such articles, but most are people you and I have never heard of - Garry David, Carroll Cole - so I chose to make the point by citing familiar names. Now can we return to discussion notability? Because User:Lepricavark's argument that the 3 I listed "aren't exactly parallel examples. The first two murdered a bunch of people, and the third guy conducted an intermittent terror campaign for many years.\" is irrelevant to the point of this discussion, which is to assess not the mental status of the individual who committed the 2014 Dijon attack, but whether the ensuing discussions of it by journalists and scholars meet WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:31, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your representation of Huldra's rationale is a strawman. If you're going to make a point using examples that don't really match what is being discussed here, you should expect that someone will point it out. Lepricavark (talk) 15:19, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • My citing “serious and long-established psychiatric issues”, was because that is was in the article. As for the examples Icewhiz mention above, as already noted, they resulted in several killings. Also, Anders Behring Breivik did not have any previous psychiatric history, and was found not insane by the court. However, my strongest argument against this article comes actually from the French authorities: They have never named the culprit. And they are usually not shy of naming terror suspects. That in itself should tell us that they think they are dealing with a mental patient, rather than a terrorist. There is no way this meets WP:GNG. Huldra (talk) 20:26, 20 October 2017 (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.
More