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. No prejudice towards discussions of merging or narrowing/expanding the focus. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of unsuccessful terrorist plots in the United States post-9/11[edit]

List of unsuccessful terrorist plots in the United States post-9/11 (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)

Biased premise designed for 'shock citation', meant to draw a positive link between US policy and terrorist suppression without providing counterpoints. Amitabho Chattopadhyay (talk) 04:13, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I agree. This is synthesis. While the individual items in the list are notable, gathered together with this title and with that opening paragraph attempt to make a correlation that is original research. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 04:20, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update After reading Ctrew's comments below, I stand by the delete even after the edits by Deadbeef. The fact that this limits itself to Islamist attacks, deliberately excluding terror attacks from other groups by the author's own admission, combined with the 9/11 cut off date just feels inherently biased. I am convinced that this article is by its very nature non-neutral and is attempting -however subtly- to advance a point of view (I.e. look how successful the War on Terror is) based on original research by synthesis by cherry-picking these items and putting them into a list creating the impression that there is a correlation that is not backed by any source. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 05:33, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you base your opinion on Ctrew's comments, then you are basing your opinion on lies. What I find most offensive about the position some are taking on this page is that in the name of eliminating "bias", they are attempting to revise history. Did the War on Terror happen? Yes, and it is ongoing. What is the target of this war? Islamic terrorism. Is the subject of this article notable? Yes. The fact that domestic attacks in the US were thwarted as part of this war is covered in reliable sources. Is this a political subject? Yes. In fact, I believe former President Bush considers it his greatest achievement as president.

Subjectively, whether these facts are good, bad, or otherwise makes no difference. To argue this article should not exist because it is biased is to dispute proven facts. If you can find criticism of these listings in reliable sources, then add it to the article. Instead, you're attempting to remove an important subject from history based on your own bias that you probably don't even realize.

There was no synthesis in this article until Ctrew deleted the reliable sources used in the compilation. I stand by my creation of this article and my reason for doing so: "I created this list because I thought it would be helpful in organizing the list of foiled plots" i.e. I created the list for historical documentation of an important subject, as opposed to the historical revisionism being pushed here.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:09, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you. I think your comment here proved my point better than I ever could have. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 06:13, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. However, I do not believe your attempt at historical revisionism is a noble task.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:15, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm doing that? Hunh. Here I thought I was just participating in an AfD discussion on Wikipedia. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 06:22, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well then I guess we all eventually come to the realization that one action can have multiple results.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:24, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, you! *blush* I just want to pinch your cheeks, you are so cute! :) Honestly, though, I don't think an accurate account of history hinges on this one little list. The that that you seem to think it does speaks exactly to my point on its inherent problematic nature. It appears that you have the stance this is not just a list, but it is a list with a message -- a specific historical point that must be preserved for the historical record to be complete and accurate. It seems the stance is that the mere collection of these items in and of itself makes the point of that message and that is what makes it original research by synthesis.-- ShinmaWa^(talk) 06:37, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You say, "I don't think an accurate account of history hinges on this one little list." But I believe for this particular subject it does. The message of the article is not original work because the only message the article intentional gives is the one reflected in reliable sources. That is that in the War on Terror waged against Islamic terrorism in the post-9/11 United States, there were claims of thwarted attacks, which altogether became an important political topic.--William S. Saturn (talk) 07:14, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let me explain to you how that is synthesis. You have (A) There is a War on Terror, which is well cited. You have (B) There have been thwarted attacks, which is well cited. However, you are taking (A) and (B) and combining them together to subtly imply (C) That all of B was a direct result of A, which as a standalone statement is NOT cited. Since (C) is the entire purpose of this list, by your own admission, I claim that the entire list is OR by synthesis. I mean, that's kind of the definition of synthesis: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 16:07, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, the listing of thwarted attacks in multiple sources was removed. These sources did imply B as part of A.--William S. Saturn (talk) 16:55, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Heritage Foundation, a known conservative political think tank, was an unreliable source. If William relies on it so much, he should take that to the WP:RSN as the burden of proof to show it is a neutral source is clearly with him. The WCBS was restored but as an inline citation; it is currently a dead link.Crtew (talk) 17:47, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you oppose the source, it is your responsibility to take it to the noticeboard when you are challenged. I have no burden since passing mentions on the noticeboard seem to show it is a reliable source.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:51, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an alternative. Here's an alternative. Here's an alternative. Here's an alternative. Here's an alternative.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:11, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:37, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This list is obviously written out to be some kind of conspiracy. Each of these items is notable, but they should not share the same list. TCN7JM 08:44, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – I've just spent 2 minutes stripping the political subtexts out. Now it's a fine list with no valid reason for deletion. Sheesh. Deadbeef 09:17, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I guess. Now that there is no synthesis, the list seems fine. I personally don't think we need a list of this sort, but there doesn't seem to be a policy-based reason to delete it, so it stays. TCN7JM 09:37, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per above. No real reason to delete. Ansh666 17:22, 15 August 2013 (UTC) Better explained below:[reply]
  • I understand the comments on the inherent POV and bias of this list. I think it could be salvaged by changing the scope: 1) removing the post-9/11 limitation, 2) re-adding "Islamic" back into the title, as the scope of the list would then become too big, and 3) creating companion lists. The current lists at the articles mentioned above are very unclear and prohibitively long, and would benefit from being forked out. The table-based organization of this list is exactly what is needed for those (see the general List of terrorist incidents, for example), but that would make those articles very long and unwieldy, so what I think is best for this here is keep and repurpose in a way that still meets WP:LISTPURP and WP:LISTN, as the current list mostly does. (Okay, to be honest, these articles are all kind of forks of the List of terrorist incidents, but as long as we keep POV out of it they should be fine.) Ansh666 21:49, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment 1 (about content issues): The problem I see with such a list is that it can be used to perpetuate government propaganda, witch hunts, rumors or accusations. I don't feel that way about the list when it only contains items with a citation to an actual conviction on grounds of terrorism and a sentence/term. When you take out the citation to the verdict and sentence and only focus on the event, then I would agree more with deletion arguments. (I deleted all of those on the list that were suspect -- bad pun.) The other worrisome point about this article is the glaring use of unreliable sources, such as the conservative Heritage Foundation. Liberal or conservative organizations have "axes to grind". Some of these are in a category "General" under "References" with no inline citation in the text -- bad approach if you want to be credible. Stick to reliable sources and proper citation. (I deleted those too.) I also deleted a template that is just as biased "Alleged militants in the War on Terror who have lived in the United States". The template is more problematic to fix than this article and should be submitted for deletion based upon the problems already mentioned. Crtew (talk) 22:17, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment 2 (about focus and title): Why does this list only focus after 9/11? Of course, most people will point to the so-called War on Terrorism. But that also creates a biased focus. Surely there were unsuccessful attacks before 9/11? And where are the cases of homegrown American terrorists? Excluded from the list are racist, neo-fascist, extremists militant groups whose members happen to be Americans. That's a problem with focus that cannot be easily fixed by deleting biased material. Crtew (talk) 22:32, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I started this article over five years ago. It should be renamed to List of unsuccessful Islamic terrorist plots in the post-9/11 United States per the talk page discussion from 2010. The focus was originally on Islamic terrorism during the American War on Terrorism. It makes no difference whether you agree or disagree with the War on Terrorism, it happened and is ongoing. Whether other articles exist or not about other instances of terrorism, makes no difference. If they should be created, then create them. --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the General/Specific listing of sources is an absolutely stupid thing to do. The "General" listing provides sourcing for the list itself. Otherwise it is synthesis. And despite the claim above, there has been no discussion at WP:RSN of whether the Heritage Foundation is not a reliable source. Passing mentions of it there seem to suggest it is a reliable source. Furthermore, wcbstv.com is the local CBS affiliate for New York. CBS is a reliable source. --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I restored WCBS but this time as an inline citation (which is now a dead link), but if you want the Heritage Foundation restored, you will have to take that to RSN because everybody knows that it is a political organization and not a neutral source. From history, it appears that WCBS was one of the first sources used. Crtew (talk) 17:13, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are disputing the source's reliability. Therefore, you should bring it before the noticeboard.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:34, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, Crtew, you added a "fact" tag beside the Anti-Defamation League source even though the source has not been identified as unreliable and was not being used to support a controversial claim. Even if the ADL was unreliable, the proper template to add (for the lazy unwilling to find a reliable source) would be Template:Verify credibility.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

William, I know your work and I know you're assuming good faith, but please make it at least "sound" like it. Thank you for your suggestion. Crtew (talk) 23:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since User:William S. Saturn claims to be the creator, would you please tell us what this article offers that is new or different from Terrorism in the United States? Why should the same content items exist in two articles? Crtew (talk) 02:29, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the author, nor can I speak for him, but don't you think Terrorism in the United States is a little long and unwieldy? This is one of the valid uses of WP:Content forks. Ansh666 02:51, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds to me like you're referring to the natural evolution of an article that just got too long, which is how the process is described in Wikipedia:Content forking, and was split. However, if you look closely at the creation dates in 2005, you'll see that these two articles were created at around the same time (replace with: "Terrorism in the United States" created a section for #Failed attacks as of 31 Dec 2005). The creation in that context seems biased and not a natural content fork but a WP:Redundant content fork, which is not allowed according to policy. Crtew (talk) 03:25, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, get your figures straight. I did not create Terrorism in the United States and don't believe I even edited the article. Back in January 2008, I created the article now up for deletion as a stand-alone. You need to drop your baseless allegations and remove the "duplicate" tag you unnecessarily added. Do we have a competence issue here? --William S. Saturn (talk) 04:07, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to WP:AGF after that blatantly false statement...in any case, what does it matter if the articles were created in 2005? If "Islamic terrorism in the US" was created at the same time or even before "Terrorism in the US", and then five years later the latter grew too big, wouldn't the former still be a valid fork? Ansh666 06:24, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I combined two errors. First, William's comment on creating "the article" was ambiguous, which is I why I asked the question, and I wasn't sure of what he had created since an IP was involved in one. Second, I read the history incorrectly. While retracting my error (see above), my point about redundancy still stands with slight modification (see above). This diff [1] clear shows that "Terrorism in the United States" has had a section #Failed attacks since 31 Dec 2005. The subject of the AfD was created in 2008 duplicating content. The list at that time was not too large, and there was NO discussion about duplicating this list and making a fork for failed attacks with only Islamic terrorism included. I acknowledge and correct my mistakes but I see no reason to back away from my conclusions about a Redundant Fork in light of the facts. Crtew (talk) 16:42, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My comment was not ambiguous. It was in the context of an AFD discussion and the next sentence should have clearly shown what I was referring to. Please do not blame me for your own misunderstanding.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:43, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. A much better treatment of this whole issue is at Terrorism in the United States under the section "Failed attacks". The content of this AfD is a duplicate and it doesn't provide the other background and context in Terrorism in the United States. I think it's hard for someone to defend a keep of this list after seeing the better article. Crtew (talk) 23:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the two articles are duplicates as there were created by the same person at around the same time. My only wish would be that the "Terrorism in the United States" article use a conviction/sentence criterion in listing items. Crtew (talk) 23:35, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above is completely false. I created the article up for deletion. I just did a check and found that I have never even edited "Terrorism in the United States." I created "List of..." as a stand-alone. For unsupported reasons, Crtew removed the sources I used to compile the events listed in the article.--William S. Saturn (talk) 04:19, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the AfD article duplicates in part stands as a fact (see this diff) since 31 December 2005 "Terrorism in the United States" has had a section on #Failed attacks: [2] The truth is in the diffs! Crtew (talk) 16:42, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Further duplication exists with Islamic_extremism_in_the_United_States#attacks_or_failed_attacks_by_date. Crtew (talk) 16:57, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really need the same information duplicated in multiple articles and then also as stand alone content? Crtew (talk) 17:00, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That other articles have some content similar makes no difference. This is not duplication. It is not a copy/pasted replication of the same material. For the reasons I already discussed above, this is a subject too important to be relegated to a section in an article. This article needs to be restored to what it originally was before Crtew removed sourcing and others changed the title out of political correctness.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:23, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You should really re-read about WP:Civility and stop telling me what my motives are. You may see it as political correctness, but I see it as an attempt to bring some quality back in. Just a few of the previous problems with this article before changes: Shoddy to no sourcing. The appearance of political hack work (POV pushing) in sourcing. I haven't even raised BLP issues about some of the content that was deleted because it was unsourced. We're encouraged to be WP:Bold when we see sub-standard content, and I actually think the current version at this moment is a big improvement.Crtew (talk) 17:58, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even read what I wrote above? I said nothing about your motives. You complain about something I did not even do, and then you discuss my motives. I already mentioned my motives above. So did you. You oppose the article because it "can be used to perpetuate government propaganda, witch hunts, rumors or accusations." Many things can be used for such purposes. That does not mean they are non-notable or should be excised from history. You have been continually lying on this page. I don't take too kindly to that.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:48, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article as it stands seems to be quite neutral. As for the "post-9/11" aspect, that seems to be a quite reasonable intersection for the list to cover, in order to avoid the more cumbersome "List of unsuccessful terrorist attacks in the United States since its founding". We may eventually have to limit it with a "but before xxx", but for now it should suffice. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 01:55, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It may seem at first blush, until you dig a little deeper to get to the underlying purpose of the article. It's subtle I admit, but I contend that its not neutral at all when you combine that the list was restricted to Islamic terrorism - explicitly omitting other kinds of terrorism - and the explicit link to 9/11. In many ways, I would place this article in the same category as the hypothetical "List of wars since the establishment of the United Nations". There have been lots of wars but picking the establishment of the United Nations (an organization created to foster world peace) as an 'intersection' isn't reasonable. That would be POV-pushing about the effectiveness of the UN. In much the same way, picking 9/11 as the intersection isn't reasonable as that is POV-pushing about the effectiveness of the post-9/11 "War on Terror". -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 19:45, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not and never have pushed any POV on Wikipedia. I wish I could say the same for those self-professed champions of human rights. Regardless of POV, the concept of foiled Islamic terrorist plots in post-9/11 United States is notable, an important topic in political discussion, and much covered in reliable sources.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:16, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't mistake me. I'm not attacking you personally and I have absolutely no doubt that you are acting in good faith. I'm not accusing you of POV-pushing, I'm saying this article is inherently POV by its very nature which is very different thing. This is a critique of the article, not of you. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 21:03, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment ...guys, guys! Cut the mudslinging and discuss the article, please? Ansh666 21:25, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Let's keep this discussion on the article. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 21:33, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. At this point, factual and covered in RSs. Also, generally agree with points made by Philosopher.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:10, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't buy the claims of political bias; there are no statements, implications, or assertions in the article that abuse sourcing to advocate a position. It is not our problem if politicians use this article as part of their games. ThemFromSpace 02:24, 21 August 2013 (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.