- 2014 Norway terror threat (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Premature close of a devoloping story. Since I initially believed the notability of this event was unclear I deliberately held off voting to consider, only to find the debate then closed. The first 4 "votes" were delete, then came 3 keep (for one alternatively merge) and one comment that didn't have an opinion on notability but underlined the media attention and uniqueness of this in Norway. The debate was relisted 29 August which I thought was a correct decision, especially since it was a developing story where it can take time to assess impact. The terror alarm was adjusted down to normal 30 August. I believe the keep votes have a US-centric focus, with the two first alleging that these kind of terror alarm happens all the time. They don't in Norway, or in Scandinavia, the last time Norwegian authorities warned in a similar way was in 1973 (it's believed that the public warning at that time actually prevented an attack. The group later attacked in Singapore). Therefore the societal impact of the warning was much bigger than a similar warning would have in the US; there are also other reasons, some of them indicated in the keep votes. I don't think the two initial delete votes were based on good insight in the reactions and impact of this in Norway. The debate was closed 31 August. I believe it should be opened again; it is easier now to assess the notability and lasting effect of the indicent that it was in the beginning (for instance there will be an investigation of how PST handled the case; this was reported relatively recently; also various commentary that has continued also after the threat was toned down). Iselilja (talk) 19:09, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Article temporarily restored for review. As to the arguments for the review, I would say simply this: From the encyclopedia's standpoint the event has no provable WP:LASTING impact, what little relevance it had has already fallen off the media radar (it seems even in Norway as far as I can tell) and nothing that happens tomorrow or a week from now (short of an actual attack on Norway, in which case this would be a footnote there) will change that. Keeping the AFD around for another week or two would have resulted in more keep !votes like "books will be written about it" and more delete ones citing actual guidelines, if at all. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 19:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The guideline for events says: "Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards (as described below)." In this case the event had widespread national impact while it was ongoing (widespread fear for terror, Muslims being afraid of stigmatization and harassment, much more police than usual (leading to less crime in this period), police arming themselves which they don't use too, people having to show passport in Scandinavia which they don't use too leading to some travel complications etc.) and the media coverage was extensive (many media having 6-7 stories on the top of their online newssites; not just tabloids, in one editon of the serious NRK debate program Dagsnytt atten all 7-8 debates were related to this story). Clearly, the story has now fallen off the media radar meaning the news radar, but it's still an event that will be referred to when discussion PST, Islamic threats to Norway and possible stigmatization of Muslims, surveillance and so on. While less prominent than the straighforward news reporting, there is much discussion, commentary and analysis related to this. The latter wasn't so clear from the AdF discussion that you closed, but there was enough statements about really extensive media coverage and interest to warrant a consideration instead of just assuming that the event doesn't have lasting effect and will not be subject to analyses in the aftermath. That's why I think you closed the discussion prematurely and should have let the relisting stand to see if there would be more discussion on the lasting effect/re-analyzing of the event. In one commentary for instance former Supreme Court judge and former leader of a surveillance report in Norway Ketil Lund says that he believes the reported terror threat will lead to enhanced surveillance in Norway. He may be right or wrong, but the fact that a leading person in Norway believes and states this, means the event has a real effect on public/political discussion related to terrorism, surveillance etc. Likewise, the leader of the Norwegian Centre Against Racism calls the event "a national exercise in suspicion", worries about the impact on the Norwegian Muslim community and says the society needs to reflect upon what happened. I also believe the discussion at the time you closed it should have been closed as "no consensus" as some of the keeps were assuming that this was a run-of-the-mill warning, when it is instead a vey rare event in Norway, only the second ever, as far as I can tell.
- Endorse DRV nom states that "notability of this event was unclear", yet the AfD nom stipulated that the event satisfied WP:GNG. This was never a discussion about notability.
DRV nom states, "there will be an investigation". How many ways are there to say that there may or may not be an investigation, and Wikipedia has a guaranteed way to find out if there will be an investigation. Wait for it. Unscintillating (talk) 00:17, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply] P.S. I was a participant at the AfD. Unscintillating (talk) 00:18, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The Norwegian Parliamentary Intelligence Oversight Committee can start investigation on their own and said 29 July that they will investigate this case. Due to the confidentiality issue it's unsure whether the public will get much more information about what happened, but there is definitely lasting interest for this event. Iselilja (talk) 09:03, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The lasting effect is notoriously difficult to prove while an event is still ongoing. The keep comments underlined the really extensive media coverage of the warning. Also the delete comments which stipulated that such public warnings are common were factually wrong and didn't show any indication of understanding this particular event in Norway. The policy guideline says: "Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards." The two first points were covered in the keep comments; the third "especially if also re-analyzed afterwards" was not covered, partly because it's not easy to prove that an event will be "re-analyzed afterwards" when the event is still ongoing. But the rarity of a public terror threath in Norway combined with a really extensive national coverage should have made the closer more interested in getting comments of possible lasting effects/aftermath analysis and comments. Therefore the first re-lising 29 July was very wise. Iselilja (talk) 10:41, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. This was well within the closing admin's discretion. A late break towards keep !votes, which happened here, can often be telling in these kinds of AfDs. But in this case the votes offered barely more than speculation. No prejudice, of course, to recreation or restoration if third party sources demonstrate over time the lasting impact of the event. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:36, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, purely on the numbers, you'd say that this was no consensus, but some of the Keep votes are particularly weak here. Well within the closer's discretion. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:04, 2 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]
- What about the quality of the delete comments which argued that public terror warnings are common? This is blatantly false in a Norwegian/Scandinavian context and those delete comments should have been disregarded as misinformed. Rather, the public warning is very uncommon and something new in the contemporary context and has led to a discussion on whether it was right of PST to warn the public. An article published 1 Augst for instance has the headline "Ber PST tenke seg mer om før neste terroralarm" (Requests PST to think things better trough before a new terror alarm". The article has comments from a Swedish terrorism expert, a former leader of the Danish intelligence service, two crisis psychologists, the Norwegian Minister of Justice and a representative for PST. And this is just one of many articles discussing various aspects of the terror warning. The delete comments didn't say much about lasting impact/aftermath analysis (partly because this is difficult to document while the event is ongoing), but they said enough about massive media coverage that a closer shouldn't so easily rule out that there would be lasting effect, for instance on policy, public debate and the public's attitude on matters related to this event. Letting the debate stay relisted for some time would have allowed more discussion about this particular point. Iselilja (talk) 10:41, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Your preferred option of relisting is not supported by the relevant policy, and I don't see any indication that this case is important enough to IAR. We don't just relist discussions over and over again until they arrive at the "correct" result. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:17, 3 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]
- Endorse A close is supposed to be made on the basis of what arguments were put forward (with some constraints on account of policies and guidelines), and not what arguments ought to have been put forward on grounds of general knowledge, expert opinion, breadth of perspective, etc. Inevitably some discussions can become influenced by US preconceptions, for example lawlessness being regarded as commonplace. This seems to me inevitable and not really anyone's fault. We also benefit from US attitudes, for example, people feeling able to say what they individually think without worrying about any higher authority. There is perhaps a general case for disallowing a close rather shortly after a relist but we quite certainly do not have this convention. So, I accept the close was appropriate and not objectionably premature. If and when there are further developments in the situation the matter can be considered afresh. Thincat (talk) 13:35, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Question I don't know what title they might use, but does the noWP cover this? DGG ( talk ) 16:15, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @DGG: I'm not sure, but I don't think so. Searching google.no for terrortrussel norge 2014 does not return any WP links, nor searching the Norwegian Wikipedia for various combinations of terms. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 22:09, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment regarding the deletion process
- Background: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Norway terror threat
First of all, I would like to state that I have neither created nor contributed much to the article concerned. I have no particular interest in it.
I question how it was possible to conclude that consensus for deletion had been reached, as there were fifty-fifty votes pro et contra (measure per quantity) and as claims pro deletion were not backed by remarkably substantial arguments or explanation (measure per quality). For example, an unexplained claim like 'It happens all the time' is worthless without arguments or explanation to test its tenability, be it relevance.
Furthermore, I question the act of closing the relisted debate before the end of seven days. Whilst the relisted debate was obviously not going to change the lack of consensus, I find it strange that the user concerned was in such a hurry. Apparently, the user could not wait to have the article deleted. Their act screams 'I am predisposed'.
The nays were of saddeningly poor quality. Most prominent, they did not manage to see or understand that the emergency situation was the event. They kept talking about 'future events' and 'warnings' (see below), and this indicates that they had made no serious attempts to get up the details of this case. Did they even read the article that they voted against? How can one rely on that they did not believe Norway is a township in Minnesota? How can one be sure that they are not trolling? They have not managed to convince that they actually knew the topic they entered so frivolously.
Citations (bolded by me):
- 'These type of warnings are announced all the time.'
- 'Unless there is other evidence to prove that something actually happened that prompted this warning [...].'
- 'Most of the attention is in regards to an unnamed future event [...].'
Other things could be mentioned, for example how they deliberately picked and misinterpreted opportune fragments of others' post while ignoring the rest of it. This happened, for example, when a yes-voting user used 'Books will be written about it' not as an argument, but in order to illustrate his aforegoing argument, 'This event is going to play a rather big part in Norwegian history'.
The closed debate is a feast for philosophers and experts of rhetorics. It is a pigsty of argumentative fallacies.
| Argument |
Criticism
|
| but seriously |
Equivalent to 'Everyone should understand that' and 'Listen to me'. It is a weasel word, and it has a twist of ridicule.
|
| Wikipedia is not CNN but an encyclopedia |
Unexplained and thus unsupported claim that the emergency situation was merely an event existing in newspapers.
|
| These type of warnings are announced all the time |
Claim based on a hasty generalisation.
|
| The great CNN does nothing to make this noteworthy |
Appeal to authority.
|
| Just because books may be made doesn't mean anything |
Exaggerated focus on minor parts of an argument in order to disqualify the whole argument.
|
Whilst I do not wish to criticise the intellectual laziness and the self-satisfaction of those who voted no, I shall criticise the deletion process, which was a series of incorrect acts. It is among the oddest and most infantile deletion debates I have observed on Wikipedia. Being too indignant by the process, I am not inclined to participate in the review above. My opinion is, for that sake, available in the closed deletion debate.
Why did they participate in the debate, anyway? Nordic Wikipedia users and non-Nordic Wikipedia users who know Scandinavia are fully capable of solving this case. Debates are open to everyone, but it is not compulsory to participate, and one should possess a minimum of knowledge before throwing oneself into debates concerning, be it, astrophysics, linguistics, or Scandinavian studies. I have asked myself whether some of the participators actually know where Norway is. How can one know that they did not genuinely believe they were discussing some remote place in the US? This uncertainty, created by the users concerned, represents a threat to people's trust in that a decision is fair and correct.
My conclusion is: There was no valid consensus. The decision was illegal, as no consensus existed. Therefore, this review is illegal too. One has to end the review immediately, declare the decision of the first deletion debate null and void, and keep the article until a new deletion debate has resulted in an obvious consensus pro deletion. No More 18 (talk) 19:35, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the observations of No More 18 above. The arguments given for deletion are lazy and easy to refute. The respective editors confuse their lack of interest for the subject with lack of notability. What results is a hollow bureaucratic dispute about guidelines and "discretionary" authority. Claims of terror treats are used by governments to restrict civil liberties. The claims are often based on confidential sources from intelligence services from the same government. These sources are hard to scrutinize by public media or public investigation. A large scale respons as done by the Norwegian government is a rare event. (Again: the claim that this happens all the time is a lazy and easy to refute comment). Otto (talk) 09:56, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Critics have drawn attention to the weakness of the delete rationales. I agree that the closer should have taken down at least one of the deletes. And two of the deletes appear to be based on facts that don't exist, leaving only WP:ATA. But on the other side of the equation, two of the keep's were arguing that the topic was wp:notable, and so contributed nothing to the discussion. The third and sole remaining keep argues that the topic won't be "just news" when the history of Norway is written, and makes no attempt to identify this as a WP:IAR position. So IMO, this !vote too should have been taken down by the closer. So at this point the arguments are potentially somewhere in the WP:NOQUORUM zone that would indeed have justified allowing the debate to continue, although the weight of argument remains solely on the side of delete. But there is more to this analysis. Even at this DRV critics continue to argue that this topic is wp:notable. In both the AfD and the DRV, I'm not aware of any policy-based argument for the encyclopedic value of keeping this article or any of this material. Consensus here seems entirely clear. Unscintillating (talk) 13:05, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
|
