Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scripted Violence


 * 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 delete. Even the "keep" !votes argue that this article is not what we want in WP. Applying WP:TNT seems to be called for. Randykitty (talk) 23:01, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Scripted Violence

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Concept may be notable but this term is not normally used to describe it. The creator of the article, Chip Berlet, is trying to spread his pet term and has copied content from his works published elsewhere, which may constitute copyright violation. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:35, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Seriously? I have in fact proposed it as a disambiguation page but that got stomped on.
 * And what about "no personal attacks."
 * Please read the actual entry at Scripted Violence Chip.berlet (talk) 22:26, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Scripting violence, performing terror: A discursive soliloquy by Sasanka Perera https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/53969519/
 * “In contemporary times, news of politically scripted violence and ‘spectacular’ acts of terror has become a global reality.”Chip.berlet (talk) 22:25, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Darrell Hamamoto: Empire of Death: Militarized Society and the Rise of Serial Killing and Mass Murder
 * August 2010 New Political Science 24(1):105-120 Chip.berlet (talk)
 * "As such, the essay also supplies a sorely-needed corrective to the under-theorization of race and racism
 * in understanding acts of scripted violence within hyper-militarized society."Chip.berlet (talk) 22:34, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * http://ukzn-dspace.ukzn.ac.za/handle/10413/8764
 * https://scholarworks.unr.edu/handle/11714/3409
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:00, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:00, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment - "Scripted Violence" also describes fictional violence as in movies or professional wrestling. StrayBolt (talk) 05:06, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Not only that, but it seems to be the far more common sense, even using a Google scholar search. --Lambiam 18:11, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The concept of scripted violence has existed for a very long time. The issue here is that it would seem it has been misidentified as a pet theory. Among the community that rearches political violence, you will find the term "scripted violence" used many times, in exactly this way. This entry serves a useful purpose, in that it seeks to inform the general audience about a concept that is well-established in the literature--the fact that you actually have, in this instance, one of the leading authors in this field working on the entry is a bonus.Dralseebiades (talk) 13:49, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you back this assertion up with some references to peer-reviewed scholarly literature? --Lambiam 18:11, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Please see the current revision for multiple cites.Chip.berlet (talk) 03:30, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * None of the cited sources that actually use the term give a clear definition of what it is supposed to mean. In these sources, the term occurs in a column in The Guardian by Jason Wilson, who is a journalist, not a scholar. He writes: 'Their forums are full of what the researcher of the far right, Chip Berlet, calls “scripted violence”, where men exhort each other to such terrorism.' This shows that Chip Berlet has used the term, but not that it has gained any traction among researchers of political violence. Likewise, Sunshine refers to Berlet, putting the term systematically between quote marks. For the other sources in which the term occurs, it is doubtful whether they use the term in the sense defined in the article. Hamamoto discusses killers living out violent fantasies such as depicted in films, justified by military violence. They are not specifically politically or ideologically motivated. He uses the term once, without explanation. The "discursive soliloqui" by Perera also uses the term precisely once without further explanation, but apparently means spectacular acts of terrorism that are perpetrated like a theatrical performance, complete with rehearsal involving a written script. Finally, the article by Eisenbruch is about a Buddhist concept, Sɑmnaaŋ mɨn lʔɑɑ ("blighted endowment"), which is thought to be violence scripted into the life of a reincarnated individual according to their deeds in a previous life.
 * Altogether, this forms a murky image that does not clearly confirm the status of the term. Most of the sources that use the term appear to be there not because they support the statements of the article, but merely because they happen to contain the article title. --Lambiam 21:52, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * There are only a handful of peer review studies that mention either term. Most of the cites found online are to journalists using the term.
 * Used by a journalist: "What role do Trump, the Republican Party and the right-wing media play in encouraging and giving permission for political violence? Are they responsible for the violent acts committed by their public? Has eliminationist rhetoric and "scripted violence" become a central aspect of the American right's political strategy? What is the relationship between the racists and white supremacists of the "alt-right" and the increase in political violence under Trump? If the Democrats are successful in the upcoming midterm elections, how will Trump and the far right respond, given their consistent strategy of appealing to violence?"
 * Used by a conservative: "This past weekend, that hatred became reality as well organized, and fully funded as violent leftists conspired to disrupt—and in one case halt entirely—Trump’s increasingly well-attended public rallies. Even more interesting, when the carefully planned and scripted violence occurred, Democrats, their media lapdogs and Republicans as well blamed it all on—Donald Trump! He was, after all, only getting the “violence” back that he was dishing out. Absent from this fabrication was the fact that for decades, nearly all violent demonstrations are scripted, fronted and funded by hardline Stalinists in league with the Democrats."
 * And note the term "stochastic terrorism" was coined by an anonymous blogger and picked up mostly by a few scholars who study risk management, and two sociologists in a book.
 * And please note that my scholarly chapter "Heroes Know Which Villains to Kill: How Coded Rhetoric Incites Scripted Violence" https://www.academia.edu/26640115/ was in a collection edited by two of the leading scholars on far right violence in the world; a fact you have chosen to overlook so far by implying my work is neither scholarly nor peer reviewed. I have had several other studies collected in peer review journals and books. If you like I can link my list of publications.Chip.berlet (talk) 22:50, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * If the only evidence for the use of this term to refer to this concept is your own published work, it seems to support my statement that it is your pet term. It is painfully obvious that the quote above from a "conservative" does not even use the term in question. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:51, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Spenser Sunshine has a PhD and used the term "scripted violence." Jason Wilson has a PhD and used the term "scripted violence." Are you suggesting they are my sock puppets who lack any agency or self respect? They credit the term to me because it is a matter of courtesy. Please correct me if I missed something. Did all the scholars and journalists who use the term "Stochastic Terrorism" credit the anonymous blogger? The use of double standards in this discussion is troubling.03:08, 14 November 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chip.berlet (talk • contribs)
 * Whataboutism is not a debating technique that works in deletion discussions. Thus far, the evidence that this is a notable concept is underwhelming. If it is true, as one defender of the article stated, that among the community that researches political violence you will find the term "scripted violence" used many times in exactly this way, it should not be terribly difficult to establish its notability. In particular, you would expect Google books and scholar searches to turn up a lot of evidence. (They don't.) It does not help the case to introduce cites that use the term, but not in the sense presented in the article. That feels like sleight of hand. --Lambiam 09:21, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * See also: Wills, Jenny Heijun.“Scripted Violence, Scripted Deferral: Pre- and Post-Civil Rights Racial Innocence.” Jeunesse: Young People, Text, Culture, vol. 5, no. 1 (2013): 179-91. Stauffer, Carl Swarr. Acting out the myths : the power of narrative discourse in shaping the Zimbabwe Conflict of Matabeleland, 1980-1987. It's probably true there are more references to the concept in discussing professional wrestling than elsewhere, but such is the society in which we live. Political violence is topical today, but it's been an area of interest in the social sciences for a rather long time. Dralseebiades (talk) 14:45, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - The multiple similar usages should pass WP:GNG and those other uses should be expanded. The article should be moved to "Scripted violence", the "V" should not be capitalized. StrayBolt (talk) 18:16, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks Stray Bolt:talk) these changes improve the article substantially.Chip.berlet (talk) 19:15, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - The term "scripted violence" has sufficient usage that the article should be retained. In its current form it can stand to be improved upon in various ways, but that is what Wikipedia does well. With regard to some of discussion here, I have the following thoughts:
 * Calling this Chip Berlet's "pet term" is somewhat disparaging, but it is true that the term is often associated with Berlet and that he uses the term differently than some other usages, e.g., violence in movies, professional wrestling. This raises some issues about potential bias and Wikipedia's Conflict of interest and No original research policies. However, the article falls into a gray area with respect to those policies. The Wikipedia COI policy says that conflicts involve "contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships." Contributing your ideas is not a conflict of interest, and if it were a conflict of interest, almost no one would be able to create or edit Wikipedia. If Berlet's concept of "scripted violence" was his idea alone, it would be "original research" and should not be included in Wikipedia, but in fact the term itself as well as the concept it denotes (the idea that leaders' public speech acts may incite violence) is well established and shared by many people besides himself. Even Μετάknowledge, in his original nomination for deletion, stated that the "concept may be notable." The question, therefore, is whether the term "scripted violence" is appropriate or whether this concept is already adequately covered in some other Wikipedia article. I've therefore looked at a few other articles to see if they already cover this concept.
 * The hate speech article is one alternative term for this concept. It refers to "speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display that incites violence or prejudicial action" and therefore has a fair amount of overlap with the concept of "scripted violence." However, there are some differences. For one thing, the "scripted violence" article in its current form seems to describe two separated types of actors -- the "high profile political or social movement leaders" whose speech incites, and the perpetrators of violence -- "angry mobs, lone wolf terrorist, abusive spouses" -- whose actions are incited by the speech act, even though there is "no direct connection between the speaker and the perpetrators." Scripted violence can therefore be seen as a subtype of "hate speech," but hate speech could also be seen as a subtype of scripted violence, since some of the examples of scripted violence currently described in the article such as professional wrestling or violence in movies are not generally considered hate speech.
 * I also looked the Wikipedia article on research on the effects of violence in mass media as a potential alternative. Again, there is some overlap, but the media violence article is primarily about communications media such as movies, video games, etc., whereas the concept of "scripted violence" seems to focus on the role of leaders or authors who instigate violence through their speech.
 * Rather than deletion, therefore, I think we should leave the article in place and let it evolve. Some uses of the term have been added recently to the article which have already expanded it beyond the concept as it is used by Chip Berlet and others who are focused on studying right-wing extremism. The article does not yet do a very good job of organizing and integrating all of this material, but future edits by other Wikipedians may help address that. Given Chip Berlet's association with a specific usage of this term, I think it would be appropriate for the article to include some language along the lines of, "Chip Berlet and other researchers who have studied alt-right movements use this term to describe the relationship between movement leaders and the actions of their adherents." However, Chip should not do that editing himself. I also think it would be a good idea for Chip to avoid getting drawn into edit wars about the article if at all possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheldon Rampton (talk • contribs)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   10:46, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. This article appears to be about a number of different topics with no real connection to each other. Politicians seeking to encourage their followers to engage in violence against their opponents has little to do with the on-stage violence in a play by William Shakespeare or the violence in a contemporary professional wrestling match. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:48, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "All the world's a stage, And all the men and women merely players; They have their exits and their entrances, And one man in his time plays many parts, His acts being seven ages… Then a soldier, Full of strange oaths and bearded like the pard, Jealous in honour, sudden and quick in quarrel, Seeking the bubble reputation Even in the cannon's mouth." -- As You Like It Act II, Scene VII Line 138 by William Shakespeare — StrayBolt (talk) 06:30, 18 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per Metropolitan90. --Lambiam 19:47, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Saying that an article appears to be about a number of different topics with no real connection to each other is not really an argument for deletion, but for a better explanation of the connection or for splitting and disambiguating. StrayBolt (talk) 01:39, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * But none of the individual topics necessarily belongs under this title, nor are they covered well in this article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:25, 21 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. It appears that the recent comments here by users Metropolitan90 and Lambiam are reiterations of their previous support for deletion, so I thought I would reiterate my primary reason for thinking we should keep the article. My reason is that the concept behind Chip Berlet's use of this term is widely discussed and accepted by many people, namely the idea that certain types of speech incite actual violence. Moreover, I am unaware of any other article in Wikipedia that currently covers that concept. The closest I have been able to find is the hate speech article. Other related Wikipedia articles that I've found include: Incitement to ethnic or racial hatred, Shouting fire in a crowded theater, Imminent lawless action and Fighting words. If one of these articles (or some other article that I have not found) adequately covers the concept, I would be open to the idea of adding a subsection to that article which explains how the term "scripted violence" is used to discuss that concept. We could then turn the current scripted violence article into a redirect to that other article. However, we would need some agreement on where to redirect it. As for the fact that there are other uses of the phrase outside Chip Berlet's focus, those other uses also have significant public acceptance. I therefore cannot agree with Metropolitan90 when he writes, "Politicians seeking to encourage their followers to engage in violence against their opponents has little to do with the on-stage violence in a play by William Shakespeare or the violence in a contemporary professional wrestling match." In fact, there are many people who draw exactly that connection. Literally every time we have a mass shooting in the United States, you'll see a chorus of pro-gun voices pointing to violence in movies, TV and rap music as the real problem so they can argue that gun control is not necessary. Even outside the pro-gun movement, there is a robust literature, ranging from scholarly studies to newspaper editorials, claiming that "scripted violence" in the media normalizes and incites actual violence. See, for example, "The Cultural Epigenesis of Gender-Based Violence in Cambodia: Local and Buddhist Perspectives", which uses the phrase "scripted violence" repeatedly and links actual violence against women to "aspects of the culture related to sexual entitlement and prompted by viewing gang rape pornography." Sheldon Rampton (talk) 16:53, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments and searching. You might want to change one of your Keeps to a comment or something, for those bots keeping score. StrayBolt (talk) 00:40, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Prior to my recent recommendation for deletion I had not argued for deletion but merely commented on contributions to the discussion by other editors. So it is not correct to describe my !vote as a "reiteration" of "previous support for deletion". My recommendation was, moreover, based specifically on the state of the article as it had become then – kind of a cross between a dab page and a sequence of essay stubs –, which is very different from how it was at the time of my earlier comments. --Lambiam 14:36, 26 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. Original research essay that mixes staged fictional violence such as in theater and film together with staged real violence for political purposes.  Sandstein   12:53, 25 November 2018 (UTC)


 * 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.