Jump to content

Talk:Islamic terrorism/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Quality of writing

Big problems on this front in this article. Could other editors comment on the compositional quality of the article as a whole, please?

I'm thinking of passages like the following, which sound distinctly un-encyclopedic to me.

  • The Saudi regime is perceived as being too closely associated with American foreign policy, particularly through granting permission to the United States to conduct military operations and establish bases on what is viewed as sacred soil. ("Is perceived" -- by whom, specifically, and where is the citation? "Is viewed as" -- ditto. The sentence gives the distinct impression that American military forces are still based in Saudi Arabia. Last time I checked, they had decamped for Qatar.)
  • The extent of support for "Islamist terrorism" within the Muslim population is disputed, although it is generally agreed that only the most extremist fringes support it. (Here we have a similarly dubious use of passive voice, which shows up, once again, twice in same sentence. As for "only the most extremist fringes" it is woefully non-specific)
  • The problem is, of course, the term " creating disorder in the land " for which the Islamist terrorist see their enemies as those creating disorder in the land of Islam. (Does this sentence parse? Does "of course" even belong in an encyclopedia? Does the reader have any idea which specific "terrorists" we are referring to, and, for that matter, how we are able to read their minds? Note, too, the embarrassing singular/plural disagreement: "the Islamist terrorist see their enemies...". This passage could have been lifted -- and for all I know, was lifted -- from someone's 3:00 am draft of a term paper.)

It's hard to imagine any of the above showing up in, say, the Columbia Encyclopedia.

Now, before somebody asks me to get to work on improving the deformed sentences above, let me share my firm conviction that the very best way to repair them and their brethren is to delete them in their entirety.

Failing that, perhaps some other editors could discuss the best remedy for the vast chunks of this article that are written at this level? Perhaps a notice up front warning readers of the generally terrible quality of the prose that follows, and appealing for their help? BrandonYusufToropov 13:58, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Ohanian's edits and more!

I think Ohanian's edits were not exactly proper.... you cannot say 'The phrase "or for creating disorder in the land" has been misused by the Islamist terrorists' because, well... who is to say they are misusing it. Terrorists are Muslim, even if their mindset is not followed by all Muslims and you cannot be saying that their viewpoint isn't Islamic. So, it isn't misuse, it's just a different and more intolerant use. Not to mention that the Qur'an quote analysis on most of the stuff here is original research.

Also, getting into the habit of interpretting subjects by single Qur'an quotes is not how Islamic jurisprudence works (and is why we need to cite more scholarly sources and not just Qur'an). Fiqahs have to know a great deal about thOct e Qu'ran and hadith as a whole before they can rule because of the intricacies so that they can know the whole story. So, we should make that clear instead of focussing solely on quotes. gren グレン 12:09, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I've changed "misused" to "used". --Lee Hunter 13:32, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

== David Gibson == comment on sentence presenting viewpoint The sentence "Also, to Al-Qaeda in particular, the world is viewed as a struggle between their extreme Islamist ideology on one hand and Zionism, Christianity and the secular West on the other." Says that it is the view of Al-Qaeda. I do not believe that Al-Qaeda views their ideology as "extreme Islamist ideology". First, they do not believe that they are extreme. While I disagree with them. That does appear to be their view. Second, they do not view themselves as Islamists but as the only true representatives of Islam. Thus, the term Islamic is appropriate in this sentence since it is purporting to present the view of Al-Qaeda and not the view of the author of the article. The sentence should read "Also, to Al-Qaeda in particular, the world is viewed as a struggle between their Islamic ideology on one hand and Zionism, Christianity and the secular West on the other." == David Gibson Oct 13, 2005 12:35 PM EST

Tor vandals

The last anon also vandalized a user page besides revert warring here. He is using the Tor proxy program. Any IP that continues in this revert war should be indefinitely blocked as it's an open proxy. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-3 22:10

Nonsense, as shown to you in IRC. 129.7.35.213 22:31, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

  • I wasn't referring to your IP. Care to explain why the 72.9 IP is listed on the Tor proxy list? Get over yourself. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-3 22:35
  • Apart from that, 129.7.35.213. Can you tell us about those Australian sources? Also, apart from the existence/inexistence of those sources, or those deliberately trying to portray the faith in the best possible light even at the expense of truthfulness is considered POV in both Australia and Wiki planet. Cheers -- Svest 22:46, 3 November 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up™
    • No he can't. I blocked him for vandalizing User:Anonymous editor. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-3 22:48
      • Lol. User has been blacklisted. :) --a.n.o.n.y.m t 22:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
        • SMH. Wikipedia really drives people crazy. I need a wikibreak to take care of my GF. She even vandalized my usertalk yesterday for being in love with this place and not w/ her. At the end of the day, X.X.X.X comes out talking nonsense about Australians who've said nothing and we trying to be serious!.  Wiki me up™

Why?

I don't understand why the part regarding Australian Imams keeps getting removed. It is properly sourced.

Welcome back. Who are those Imams? --  Wiki me up™
Anon IP Blocked again for evading ban. Replying to these guys not necessary, svest :). --a.n.o.n.y.m t 02:29, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
lol! Well, it seems very hard for me to know exactly about their schedule! Svest 02:31, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I was wrongly blocked. And the Imams in question are named in the article.

Suggested removal

"...particularly secular Muslims as well as those who support Muslim liberalism, do not accept that attacks on civilians can ever be justified by Islam."

This implies that practicing, conservative Muslims are more likely to support civilian attacks which is difficult to support POV. Also I'd suggest that for a practicing Muslim, "secular Muslim" is a contradiction-in-terms. I'd suggest removing the caveat. Marskell 10:13, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

It it entirely feasible to maintain a secular Muslim identity, particularly in the Balkan and Black Sea countries. Compare "secular Christian" or "multilayered identities". Please double-check yourself for possible hidden agendas when you delete or edit. --Big Adamsky 10:54, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
"Please double-check yourself for possible hidden agendas when you delete or edit." LOL. If you're referring to removing the sentence that began "Previously...", it was entirely unqualified and assumptive. "Previously..." who where when?
Of course it's possible to self-identify as a secular Muslim; I was just suggesting that for those who practice, such an identification would be bogus. The Five Pillars are fairly explicit. If you don't pray, fast, donate, make an attempt to go to Mecca, and (most obviously) submit to faith in Allah you aren't a Muslim in the eyes of people who do.
Finally, you don't answer the main complaint: the line tacitly suggests that conservative Muslims give support for targeting civilians. That's a very fair complaint, not a hidden agenda. Marskell 11:08, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
No, you missed the point: Namely that someone whose parents are Muslim (culturally or otherwise), does not lose his or her personal identity if he or she choses to ignore any or all of the dogmatic pillars. Secular identity does not (necessarily) contradict religion, as you seem to suggest. Nor does it constitute atheism, except in islamic law. The paragraph simply stated that secular Muslims are far more likely to have a broad non-biased world-view than traditional, orthodox or fundamentalist Muslims and that this may affect their likeliness to consider Islam and Islamism two very separate concepts.

The line specifically references attacks on civilans, not a general worldview. Should we or should we not suggest that traditional or conservative Muslims would be more likely to support attacks on civilans than their liberal counterparts? As it stands that's precisely what we suggest.

I have absolutely no desire to go round in circles on the religious identity argument but I must ask: how did I miss the points about parentage and abiding by the "dogmatic pillars" when you never referenced them? Marskell 12:51, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, we went round in circles on a point that was ultimately unrelated (who is a Muslim?) but I haven't seen an argument that the caveat is not POV. I have removed it. Marskell 08:20, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Dates in Examples of Islamist Terrorist section

I properly formatted all but one of the dates in this section. (It took a bit of detective work, half of them were in US date format, the rest in European date format). I can't determine whether "7/5/02 - Bombing in al-Arbaa, Algeria. 49 dead, 117 injured" took places on 5 July or 7 May. Any help is appreciated. Peyna 00:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

User:129.7.35.213 and User:129.7.35.102's edits

Don't you racists have better things to do than edit war over cited material?

Enough of this name calling. Let's do this the proper way. I am not knowledgeable on the topic, so forgive me when I have to remove material and demand attribution or rewording without doing it myself.

Islamist groups in non-Islamic nations around the world always try to portray themselves as respectable, and in many cases attempt to use the free speech rights of Western nations to promote hateful ideologies. These fit with the Islamic doctrines of Taqiyya and Kitman, which explicitly allow Muslims to lie and deceive infidels in the goal of furthering Islam's spread.

Not neutral, obviously, and not sourced. The paragraph implies islamist groups are never to be trusted. The Taqiyya article does not talk about "lying to infidels", it talks about permission to pretend to renounce faith under stress. That's slightly more subtle. JRM · Talk 21:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

A recent US Pentagon report indicates that US intelligence agencies analyzing the Koran are finding it not to be a document of religion hijacked by terrorists, but a manual of war followed by said terrorists. [1]

The internal document explains that Islam divides offensive jihad into a "three-phase attack strategy" for gaining control of lands for Allah. The first phase is the "Meccan," or weakened, period, whereby a small Muslim minority asserts itself through largely peaceful and political measures involving Islamic NGOs -- such as the Islamic Society of North America, which investigators say has its roots in the militant Muslim Brotherhood, and Muslim pressure groups, such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations, whose leaders are on record expressing their desire to Islamize America.

In the second "preparation" phase, a "reasonably influential" Muslim minority starts to turn more militant. The briefing uses Britain and the Netherlands as examples.

And in the final jihad period, or "Medina Stage," a large minority uses its strength of numbers and power to rise up against the majority, as Muslim youth recently demonstrated in terrorizing France, the Pentagon paper notes.

Problem with this is that the quote is from what appears to be a blog. That's not a good source to get your information from. Paul Sperry, the author, claims to get it from "a new Pentagon briefing paper I've obtained". That means Paul Sperry is our primary source, but as a blogger Paul Sperry (correct me if I'm wrong) is not a notable or necessarily reliable source. JRM · Talk 21:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I moved the remaining section down further. It should not be ahead of basic sections describing the topic. The information moved here to the talk page is highly questionable without a verifying source. The cite used is an extremist right-wing site with no apologies for being so. - Tεxτurε 21:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I've reinstated the remaining quote from The Australian, sans the polemic. The section as a whole is now rather sparse, of course, but there's nothing wrong with that. JRM · Talk 21:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I've tried to clean up the language on the other report. Whatever your personal biases, Frontpage Magazine is a longstanding journalistic website, and they're directly quoting the document. We don't quibble if CBS or NBC or the LA Times quote a "document" that's not available for public consumption, so we have to give FP the same benefit of the doubt. - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.7.35.102 (talk • contribs) .
Using that logic I should be able to cite Al Jazeera as a reliable source. BTW, violating a block means that anyone can revert your edits at will. - Tεxτurε 21:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, it does. I will protect the page if another revert war erupts, though, so it's a moot point. JRM · Talk 21:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Another user has just reminded me that an arbcom ruling has said that all his edits should be reverted. This would make a page protection inappropriate in the face of an arbcom decision. [2] - Tεxτurε 21:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Lies will get you nowhere. - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.7.35.102 (talk • contribs) .
Here's the ruling: [3] - Tεxτurε 22:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
False accusations will still get you nowhere.
The nice thing about AlJihadi is that they're easily refutable. And what is this violating a block that you speak of? - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.7.35.102 (talk • contribs) .

It would be much more helpful if POV warriors like "Anonymous Editor" would kindly say WHY they revert, especially when they refer others to the talk page. I'm reverting this on the basis that "Anonymous Editor" is a known edit warrior with no respect for facts.

Just reverted that [snip] "Texture" again. Frontpagemag is a news source, not a blog. Yes, it covers things that the PC media try their best to hide. But they've yet to be wrong. Then again, I expect as much from the [editors] who accuse everyone of being sockpuppets rather than engage in real debate.

Edit warring

Edit warring is bad. Don't do it. --Phroziac . o º O (mmmmm chocolate!) 22:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to place a note here: the hand of user:Anonymous Editor is readily apparent even if he personally has made no remarks here in the latest round. Numbers are fine and good but meatpuppetry and bad-faith gaming of the system to avoid 3RR aren't, and WP:EW specifically states that both sides of an edit war are supposed to be dealt with equally.
Whatever the specific complaints about the content, which seem to revolve about certain people wanting to attack the source (upon cursory examination, the source is valid), their behavior is deplorable and completely unhelpful, as is the behavior of admins who hand out large-scale blocks and admins who take accusations of being someone who left long ago and block on that assumption, and worse yet leave gloating talk-page messages about it, is even more deplorable.
I repeat calls for those who object to be more specific about why they object and come up with some freaking sources of their own already. As it stands, the source is valid, the material should be included until they can come up with a countersource or a better explanation than "I want to attack the messenger."
The internet is full of a billion piddling newsletters and so-called "magazines" that can give you "proof" that aliens are among us, black helicopters are flying over Montana, or that <name your group> are trying to take over the world. If you can cite an actual specific Pentagon document that's been seen by a notable person (preferably one who is not wearing a tinfoil hat and is not heavily medicated) I would be pleased to have it in the article. But like they say in science, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". The onus is on the person or persons who want this bizaare stuff in the article to prove that it comes from a legitimate source and is not another half-baked Internet crank with a creepy agenda. --Lee Hunter 01:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Frontpagemag is not a "half-baked" news source, as you so put it. Nor do their writers believe in black helicopters, nonhuman aliens among us (as opposed to mere "aliens" as in those of another nationality), tinfoil hats, or any of that nonsense.
If you are going to make such outlandish statements when trying to vilify a valid source, I'll just throw out any pretense that you're operating in good faith and consider the previous accusations of your bigotry well founded. What say you?


I agree with the previous writer. The report from the pentagon must stay in the article because we have hearsay evidence that an unknown report by an unknown author written at an unknown date for an unknown audience in the US government which a copy of the report is stolen by an unknown person and leak to the public is MORE THAN ENOUGH PROOF that the report must be genuine. Ohanian 06:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Unknown reports - QUITE COMMON in journalism. Journalists get access to things the public don't, sad to say. And quite often sources request anonymity before handing things like that over. What's your point? This is no different than any other governmental leak to a news source.
There are "journalists" and there are journalists. Real journalists are recognized as such by other journalists and by the public at large. Front Page does not qualify. Real journalists have their credibility, reputation and careers as journalists on the line when they quote anonymous sources. Having your very own article on a web page is all very special and precious but it doesn't make you a journalist. --Lee Hunter 13:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
It's too bad for our resident [abusive comment deleted] LeeHunter that Paul Sperry IS a recognized DC-based journalist who does freelance writing for a number of publications including Antiwar.com as well as having two published books.
Oops. LeeHunter was too busy trying to impugn the source to actually bother researching it. So Sad, Bye Bye, Come Back When You're Not A [abusive comment deleted].
Well, as I said before, the onus is not on everyone else to investigate your sources. FrontPage is an obscure far right Islamophobic website. Anything published there should normally be summarily dismissed as slanted beyond belief. Regarding Sperry, yes he seems to be a legitimate journalist. He's touted as an "investigative journalist" although I note that his main experience is writing for Investor's Business Daily, which is not exactly the proving ground for today's top investigative writers (to put it mildly). His "investigative" stuff is mostly published by FrontPage and WorldNetDaily (or as I like to call it WhirledNutDaily). To paraphrase a couple of reviewers of his book on Amazon, he's a bigoted nutjob. --Lee Hunter 17:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
And I disagree wholeheartedly. The fact remains that this person writes and is published by both sides of your "argument." If you think he's bigoted, dig up a countersource. He's notable enough to be a secondary source and that's all that is needed by policy. ApeAndPig
I don't have to go far to find evidence of his bigotry. His website and columns offer many, painfully clear examples. I haven't yet found evidence that any of his "investigative" breakthroughs have been picked up by anything other than fringe websites (mostly on the right but one, oddly enough, on the left), but I'm hoping that someone will show me something more substantial. --Lee Hunter 21:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
And yet you don't bother to actually quote a single source. You're as transparent as they come. The source is valid, stop your edit warring.ApeAndPig
I've already mentioned WorldNutDaily, FrontPage, and Paul Sperry's own website. Go look for yourself. You'll find numerous examples of raving bigotry labelled as "investigative" journalism. I realize that "mainstream media" is a dirty word to people outside the mainstream, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place where any unverified claim is to be repeated. For example, WP has articles about various alternative healing techniques. Just because somebody, somewhere wrote in a popular magazine that a certain technique "works" doesn't mean that the claim must be repeated as fact in a WP article. This particular claim by Sperry, that there is some Pentagon document written by some unnamed person which only he has seen, smells more than a little funny. Considering the source is someone with a huge axe to grind against Muslims, does not have the backing of a major media organization and does not have a reputation as an investigative journalist (except in the eyes of these creepy fringe websites who seem to adore him) I see no reason why it should be treated as anything but wild, unsustantiated rumor. --Lee Hunter 22:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

You still refuse to actually put up a source. All I see that smells funny is your lying. You're the one being undocumented, and i don't think you have any intention of showing any evidence in good faith. "Go look for yourself" is not valid by policy. And trying to paint real journalists by making unrelated analogies doesn't work either. ApeAndPig

I'm afraid I don't understand what you're looking for. A source for what exactly? A source for my assertion that he's a bigoted nutjob? That's only my opinion (and the opinion of a number of people on Amazon who've read his book) but it's pretty much self-evident from his writings. I don't have access to his psychiatric records, if that's what you mean. --Lee Hunter 01:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Everything the reporter says could be true, and it still might not mean much. Reading the article at FrontpageMag, this could be no more than a briefing paper written on spec by an independent contractor - it might never have been presented to anyone but the reporter. The central point seems to be Allegations of concealing intentions -- that leaders say one thing in Arabic and another in English. The quote from The Australian (which needs a new link) illustrates that. Time justifying or discrediting the source of something that may not be anything, would probably be better used finding direct quotes that address the point, pro or con. Tom Harrison Talk 03:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Unprotecting

2 weeks sine any discussion here. will try unprotection. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 05:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Ban one side of an argument by [abusive comment] admin and you get no discussion because the islamist editors feel they "won".

Enviroknot's edit

I see he's been at it again, and people were right to revert him because he's banned, but I'm wondering whether the content was in fact okay. Palmiro reverted on the grounds that it's an extreme minority POV, but the source is Front Page Magazine, regarded as an acceptable source for Wikipedia, which claims its source is the Pentagon, hardly extreme minority. It would be good to find another source backing up that this is in fact what the Pentagon paper said, but Front Page Magazine's contributors do tend to have good government sources. Any thoughts? SlimVirgin (talk) 01:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

If this were indeed true, it would cause a huge uproar and many other sites would have it listed as a top story. The funny thing is the first place I read about this is a highly anti-Islam website, and even they said it was too good to be true. A "Pentagon briefing paper"? Come on, he has to do better than that. Yuber(talk) 01:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, fair point. I'll take a look around and see if I can find it elsewhere. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Since when did Front Page become an encyclopedic source? It's not much more than a web-based podium for right wing commentators, most of whom seem to be teetering on the lunatic fringe. And calling this thing a "Pentagon" document is completely meaningless and misleading without context. All we know is that it was supposedly written by one or more of the 23,000 people at the Pentagon, but we don't know who. Uniformed or civilian? Clerk, corporal or colonel? Was it an official document or a private rant? Who, if anyone, requested it? Did senior officials Pentagon treat it as useful or dismiss it as complete stupidity? Or did ANYone at all see it except for its author and this "journalist". Did the person who wrote it have any expertise whatsoever in Islam or MidEast history? Until at least a few of these questions are answered, I would treat it as complete rubbish, not worth the pixels it's printed on. --Lee Hunter 02:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
I think it can be worked in in a NPOV manner by saying something like "Some have claimed the Pentagon has developed a secret strategy to fight terrorism by studying Islam". Yuber(talk) 02:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
There are plenty of scholarly sources on Islamic terrorism. The only possible reasons for using this specific source over another for which there is far less controversy would be either 1)we haven't found others or 2) we want to advance its opinions. #2 is below our standards. Have we attempted #1 and discussed our results?
So far, we are using a POV article to cite a POV report. This daisy-chaining alone is highly questionable.
I find the inclusion and quoting of this source, as is, in conflict with our goals of NPOV, unscholarly, and discrediting to the article. At the very least, we should find another source to cite these views. Preferably a source which respects our NPOV standards to a higher degree. --Vector4F 02:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe most of Yuber / LeeHunter's complaints were answered by previous editors earlier in this talk page. As an anonymously leaked document, the who/when/where is not provided, but this is no surprise. News pieces regularly run with "protected" sources, such as the recent leak on the NSA's secret wiretap project. Internal memos from governmental organizations or private organizations, with names removed, quite commonly reach the press especially when the source would be revealed by including these names. FrontPageMagazine has a decent reputation for being reliable, and as mentioned above, the author of this particular piece works for newsmagazines on both sides of the political spectrum. I see no problem with the genesis until such time as it is proven false.

I'm afraid I don't see where my complaints have been answered anywhere on this talk page. The NSA wiretap project you cite is an excellent example of actual journalism where the story has MULTIPLE sources, the facts are checked by factcheckers, the story is scrutinized by professional editors and, in the case of the NY Times, the reputation of a huge media enterprise is on the line. This Pentagon story on the other hand, is just some guy making extraordinary claims without providing anything to back it up and without any checks and balances. --Lee Hunter 03:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
The NSA story was a feeding frenzy to attack the Bush administration. This is something news organizations are likely to bury. There are plenty of anonymous sourced articles that never go past one article, which does not impugn their reliability.Queeran
The signifigance of the NSA story can be disputed, but the basic facts have been publicly confirmed by the president himself. In this Pentagon story, the facts have not been confirmed anywhere. Equating the relatively obscure and relentlessly POV FrontPage website with the world's largest and most influential daily newspaper is a bit absurd. --Lee Hunter 15:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

As for Yuber's suggestion, we do not softpedal the news reports of reputable organizations. It should not be a "some have claimed", we have the source which claims it, so it should be cited appropriately. In fact, Yuber's wording makes it worse, because until the report has other sources or is leaked to someone else it has ONE source. "Some have claimed" implies otherwise.

I also think that everyone would be advised to reread the policies on sources. We do not, for instance, discount reports given by the highly liberal New York Times when they report negative stories on political conservatives. I cannot see where this is different.Queeran

Addendum: as for the sourcing, if Yuber is so insistent, we could alter the language to read "According to a report written by Paul Sperry in Frontpage Magazine..."Queeran
Above SlimVirgin says that Front Page Magazine is an acceptable WP source. Where is the list of acceptable sources kept? Unbehagen 03:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
I find it impossible to believe that FrontpageMag could seriously be considered a reliable source. We are talking about the magazine that came up with this gem: I am a Lucky Arab, whose current edition awards the notorious Oriana Fallaci its woman of the year award, which links prominently to extremist sites such as www.jihadwatch.org. Wikipedia's reliable sources policy clearly states that extremist organisations can only be considered sources for information about themselves. Frontpagemag clearly falls into this category in terms of extreme content. I'm amazed anyone would think otherwise. Palmiro | Talk 13:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
They're reliable, you just don't like that they report things truthfully without PC softness.

Admin SlimVirgin asserts that Frontpage Magazine is a valid source. So far, rather than addressing whether the report is factual, the counters are claiming the whole site is biased. There has been no discussion of the material for a few days now by anyone. Therefore, I am putting the material back with as up-front citation as I can. Please do not delete it without first discussing it on the talk page. Queeran

We've already discussed this at length and none of the objections have been answered so I've deleted it again. But here's another objection, while we're at it: according to Sperry's column this Pentagon report cites the recent uprising by Muslim youth in France as an example of the later stage of an Islamic revolution. This is a stunningly stupid assertion. First of all, how was it even possible that this very recent event made it into a Pentagon think piece mere days after the event and then was leaked to a reporter? Its just not plausible. Second of all, the youth in France who were rioting were, by most (non-rightwing-nutbar) accounts, not part of any kind of Islamic uprising - it was a protest against racism and unemployment - so it's a very poor example of this point. Sperry's column bears all the marks of a clumsy fraud. Without confirmation from a recognized source it must be deleted. --Lee Hunter 21:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I have not been following the conversation here for very long, so I recognize that the regulars here may know each other well enough to use phrases like 'non-rightwing-nutbar.' Still, for the sake of people just joing the discussion it might be better to avoid this kind of characterisation. Tom Harrison Talk 21:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
SlimVirgin's questions were not answered, and she says the source is usable as per wikipedia policy. It is not your place to claim that your objections are not answered, because your objections are merely ad hominem attacks upon the author. Please cite a source for your own or otherwise give a reasonable answer why the source does not fit as per policy. I am placing it back, please remember that revert warring and deleting of valid source material is frowned upon. Queeran
I thought I responded adequately to Slim's remarks. Please read the above paragraphs. I greatly respect SlimVirgin, but on this page it was I that responded to her remarks, and she hasn't replied since. Palmiro | Talk 01:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Just some thoughts on coming with a compromise formulation: we have a source (Frontpage) that has a pronounced bias, but does not tend to make things up out of whole cloth. They cite an allegedly leaked "Pentagon report" that does not appear to have been leaked to anyone else. I think Yuber is thinking along reasonable lines by suggesting we provide a brief summary of its contents, along with specific Who/When citations, but not reproduce extended sections of it as we do now. If it were to be confirmed by numerous other mainstream sources, we could go with Queeran's version...if it gets debunked, we obviously remove it altogether, as per LeeHunter's preference. For now, how about the middle ground? Does that make sense to anyone else? Babajobu 01:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I understand your position, but the addition to the article being advanced here goes to the heart of what Islam is (at least as seen from the vantage point of Christians, Jews, etc). If there is any factual basis to it adequate to supporting its being included in something that aspires to be a reputable and reliable encyclopaedia, it should be possible to find a really impeccable source for it. Really on articles relating to topics like Islamist terrorism, which I think you will agree is widely discussed in the Anglo-saxon world these days, it is hard to see why we should have to settle for second-best in our sources.Palmiro | Talk 01:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid it doesn't make sense to me. The quote is from a guy without a lot of credibility as a journalist who seems to make his living by peddling scare stories about Muslims. This particular yarn has not been picked up, as far as I can tell, by any other media outlet (excluding verbatim repetition in the r-wing blogosphere). If this is important factual and verifiable information, surely to heavens it would have been confirmed by some other media (other than Wikipedia). I don't even see how it particularly fits with the subject of this article, which is specifically Islamist Terrorism. Even if his story was verified it would be better suited to an article about western perceptions/fears re. Islam. It certainly shouldn't be presented as some kind of proof about the "real" Islam. --Lee Hunter 01:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I support your suggestion (in the interest of avoiding an edit war). However it is only, as you imply, a temporary solution. The controversy is really over the use of this source, not how it's being used. I completely agree there is too much quoting of the source, but that's an issue of writing, not sources. Again, I say go with it, but only to spare us this revert nonsense. --Vector4F 00:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to point out there is actually a WP article on reliable sources which discusses sourcing from partisan websites, the proof required by exceptional claims, the dangers of false authority, and the value of secondary sources. All of my objections to the Sperry article can be found there. --Lee Hunter 03:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Babajobu 03:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

A campaign by biased people to tar and feather someone is nothing new. You should keep your criticisms to the subject at hand. As well as this, Paul Sperry IS in a position to and regularly does get his hands on such documents; see the report on [4] [5] torture in Iraq at Antiwar.com, for instance, as well as one at [6] American Conservative Journal - which are two very dissimilar publications. I cannot see where these users get off trying to paint the writer as "biased" (of course, they use stronger language which if it were leveled against a wikipedia user would definitely qualify as personal attacks), but there we have it. Again, despite LeeHunter's outrageous claims, many stories never see the kind of "verification" that he desires because anonymous sources/whistleblowers, by definition, are very unlikely to be handing out these documents to every journalist they can find. Doing so increases the risk of their being found out and/or retaliated against. So on the one hand I have users making outrageous ad hominem attacks against the author, and on the other I have an administrator who confirms that Frontpage Magazine passes the tests of the very same page which LeeHunter seems to desire to misquote. I am going to wait for a response before putting the material back, in deference to wikipedia's policies that edit warring is bad, but it is disheartening to see such behavior from other editors on this page who could very easily discuss things without resorting to such tactics. Queeran

Where exactly did LeeHunter´s desire to misquote the verifiable sources policy become evident to you? Palmiro | Talk 10:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
When he decided to post a number of random links to within the article, despite an admin already stating that the source passes those same tests.Queeran
Perhaps you would indulge me and read the sections I cited (sourcing from partisan websites, the proof required by exceptional claims, the dangers of false authority, and the value of secondary sources). Each of those links clearly and unambiguously addresses the complaints I made earlier about FrontPage. Re. SlimVirgin's support for FrontPage as a source I note that she hasn't followed up on the question even though I posted on a message on her talk page last night. Contrary to your remark, she/he did not state she based her support for FrontPage on the WP guidelines for reliable sources. I also note that it's not an admin's job to decide what is and is not a legitimate source, only to help editors come to a resolution of disputes. I am eagerly awaiting her further participation in this discussion. --Lee Hunter 14:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
OK, I think I see the problem. Basically an admin on Wikipedia is someone who has extra privileges on the site, and is selected for that task because they're a known and trusted contributor. They don't have any greater authority to interpret Wikipedia policies or guidelines. That remains a task, insofar as it applies in any given case, for all editors on a given page, through the development of consensus on the talk page; or if necessary it can be discussed on the page regarding that policy. If that doesn't work, there is also the possibility of a request for comments.
In this case, LeeHunter is perfectly entitled to maintain that the verifiable sources policy precludes the use of this source in this way, and the fact that an admin has expressed disagreement doesn't invalidate his interpretation of it. It's still up to us here to reach consensus, or to attempt to find it through other means such as a request for comments. Palmiro | Talk 15:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I advise you simply give up, Queeran. There's no way the islamists on this page will ever allow real sources that don't fit their POV to be used, and if you continue, they're not above using proxies and making false attacks on themselves and then claiming the attacker is "your" sockpuppet. If you keep opposing them, all they will do is run you off like every other DECENT editor has been from these pages.
Edit warring is pointless. How about this: could you (or anyone) describe exactly what information in this source is so important that its inclusion is worth an edit war? Perhaps we can find a source which is less controversial but still conveys the necessary details. To put it another way - perhaps we can better prove whatever point you feel must be made. In fact, I'd be personally willing to take up the task. --Vector4F 00:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree that edit warring is pointless. However, from my experience on this page now, it seems that no editor bothers with the talk page unless reversions are going on. In the meantime, I have been working to find another source, but the problem with anonymous sources is their relative scarcity, especially if for whatever reason the journalist does not release (or is allowed merely to see, but not keep a copy of) what they have seen. From my experience studying islam, these conclusions are not out of line with conclusions that an intelligence agency might draw from the koran, from current events in areas like Indonesia and Australia, and from the public statements of terrorist organizations. However, my publishing my personal feelings on the matter would be Original Research, whereas this is sourced from an organization that I see an admin's word is an acceptable source for Wikipedia. I get the feeling LeeHunter is not interested in any "consensus" on the matter other than the material's removal, which is inconsistent with wikipedia's policies. Queeran
Thank you for listening and thank you for stopping to talk. I see your problem and I want to help. I oppose using this source, for reasons I've said elsewhere. But, I support the inclusion of this kind of information in the article. We have a common goal. Please, read that last sentence again.
I need your help here. If our only difference is the source itself, we can solve this by finding another source. If the new source says the same basic thing, then our goals are met, right?
Okay. I believe I understand what you are trying to convey. I have on my bookshelf, just to the right here, several books which deal with this exact issue. Beyond that, there are dozens of think-tank studies, government reports, and academic journals to use. I can handle all that, but we have to work together. I need you to judge the new source and say whether it's an OK replacement. We can try more than one. Fine. But before I do this, I need you to tell me that this will be worth it, that this can work. Please, just give me a chance. --Vector4F 09:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


I'm afraid I don't follow your logic. I have pointed you to several specific WP guidelines that strongly caution against using this kind of material. If you have an argument with these guidelines (re. the use of material from partisan sources, the need for secondary sources etc) perhaps you should seek to have those guidelines changed. In any case, the onus is on the person who wants something included in the article to provide acceptable sources not on other editors to accomodate you or achieve "consensus". --Lee Hunter 02:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid you are misunderstanding. I've read those guidelines and they do not apply as you seem to wish to twist them to applying. However, I'm not going bother reverting you today, that would be edit warring. Queeran

heaven or Jannah?

I would suggest that heaven is a more appropriate link than jannah - it is a better article and explains the concept more clearly. Linking to jannah suggests that it's something quite different that we're talking about; such is not the case. Any views? Palmiro | Talk 00:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I suppose in the best of all worlds, Jannah would be expanded with relevant information about what distinguishes the Moslem view of Jannah from the Christian view of Heaven from the generic understanding of paradise. I see Heaven doesn't have an entry for the Islamic understanding. Right now Jannah is kind of short, and I'm not qualified to expand it. I don't think Heaven would be the best link, until and unless a section on Islam is added to it. I guess I have no strong peference between paradise and Jannah...at least as far as linking goes. Tom Harrison Talk 01:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Maybe stick with jannah then, and I'll put improving heaven on my to-do list (behind all the paid work i am ignoring this very minute...) Palmiro | Talk 01:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
If you improve heaven, I'm sure you'll be rewarded. "Lay not up treasures on Earth..." ;) Best, Tom Harrison Talk 01:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I think Jannah is the more relevant of the two, so you should stick with it, and if it needs improving, then improve it.Queeran


'Islamic terrorism' and Tenth Crusade

MSK, please note that Islamic and Islamist mean different things. The distinction is quite useful to be made in the beginning of this article, in my opinion. And Tenth Crusade is directly relevant to this kind of terrorism, so I don't see why it shouldn't be there. - ulayiti (talk) 12:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Look at the actual sentence, it doesn't make sense at all: This article's already called Islamist terrorism, not Islamic terrorism, definitely no need to have the title name twice repeated. --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 12:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Islamic Terrorism redirects here. It's probably worth mentioning in the intro to avoid confusing readers. Tom Harrison Talk 12:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
ah, now that's what I didn't know. ok. I already did that now. --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 12:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
The sentence says, 'The term Islamic terrorism is used more commonly, especially in Western media, but some believe it to be a smear against Islam.' This is not repeating the article title, it's making a distinction between the correct usage 'Islamist terrorism' and the incorrect (but common) 'Islamic terrorism'. This is extremely useful to have in the article. Why do you think it doesn't make sense? - ulayiti (talk) 12:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
um sorry. I actually just looked at the old edit again and I see it does say Islamic terrorism in the second bit and not Islamist again.. I misread it somehow I dunno. I could've sworn it said "islamist terrorism... the term islamist terrorism is used more commonly.."etc --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 20:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

The Saudis themselves are declaring a war between Islam and the West.[7]

Iran is screaming "Death to America Death to Israel." [8]

And an [abusive comment] sympathizer admin has locked this article down because people were telling the truth about Islam on it.

What a [expletive] joke this so-called "encyclopedia" is.

Even better, they let [abusive comment] like LeeHunter have free hand to mess with the comments of others. What else is new, all he does is POV war to try to claim Islam is peaceful and everyone should convert to the [expletive] death cult of mohammed.
With respect to Swollib, who deleted this earlier as a revert, it does seem somewhat relevant to the current state of the page. Queeran
I think you may have misread that Foxnews article. Here is the relevant excerpt:
Sheik Abdul-Aziz al-Sheik, the kingdom's grand mufti, said Muslims faced critical challenges, among them accusations of terrorism and human rights abuses and calls for revisions in their school textbooks. "Oh, Muslim nation, there is a war against our creed, against our culture under the pretext of fighting terrorism. We should stand firm and united in protecting our religion," he said, speaking at a mosque on the plain of Mount Arafat.
Seems to me that he is not "declaring a war" as you put it, but making a claim that his religion is under attack under the pretext of fighting terrorism. That's not exactly an unreasonable assertion given recent remarks by William G. Boykin who came across more like an Iranian mullah than a US general. --Lee Hunter 12:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
In Islamic parlance, "they declared war on us" is the usual excuse to declare Jihad. Osama bin Laden doesn't claim to have started his little war, he claims the West attacked "Islam" and uses that as justification. The same way for Palestinian thugs claiming to be holy warriors, and for POV warriors who run around on Wikipedia trying to hide the truth of Islam's hateful ideology.

Wikipedia isn't a forum, please stop arguing unless you plan to edit.--Urthogie 13:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

my view of the article and its edit wars

Chill out people, the article isn't that bad. It's more redundant than POV. I'm a third party here, and a Jew who supports israel, and I don't see a ton wrong with this article. Chill out and lets peacefull work together. Be civil, and avoid saying ish twice in the article to hammer in any POV's. Ill continue helping. Shalom and salaam, --Urthogie 09:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks like the only reason there's edit warring in here is because of a bunch of pro-Islam POV pushers. Hope you don't mind my editing out the wankers apolo-jism. Extc
No offense, but I see plenty of people here who think Islam is hateful, and push that POV as well. It's on both sides, and we can definitely make this better. You'll find I won't be a "wanker" for or against either side. Also, I haven't run into an edit war yet, people seem to respect neutrality here and its quite workable. Help us out!--Urthogie

Apology for edit summaries

I want to apologize in advance if any of my edit summaries pissed people off by saying their edits were POV. Wasn't constructive, and you'll expect me to refrain from it. Peace, --Urthogie 15:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Islamic_terrorism/Archive_2&oldid=1136827557"